Profits from two very large financial institutions have been in the news lately. Its amazing how that can happen in an environment where taxpayers have been subsudizing those institutions and others like them since last Fall.
One, JPMorgan Chase, just paid back its TARP money, but there has been not accounting for the funds advanced by the Fed.
Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, did not take TARP money, and again, there is not any accounting, one way or the other, for any funds advanced by the Fed.
Goldman, however, was the primary beneficiary of the bailout of AIG, receiving $12.9 Billion dollars of taxpayer money passed through AIG.
One might ask why them....why not Lehman Bros., too?
One of the things learned early in my career in politics was that when you have questions like that, you "follow the money."
OpenSecrets.org is a site where one can do just that. I highly recommend it to you.
If one checks campaign donations to the big shots, one can learn a lot. Take Obama's biggest contributors last year:
"University of California
$1,564,490
Goldman Sachs
$994,795
Harvard University
$854,017
Microsoft Corp
$833,617
Google Inc
$803,436
Citigroup Inc
$699,790
JPMorgan Chase & Co
$695,132
Time Warner
$589,334
Sidley Austin LLP
$588,598
Stanford University
$586,557
National Amusements Inc
$550,683
UBS AG
$543,219
Wilmerhale Llp
$542,618
Skadden, Arps et al
$530,839
IBM Corp
$527,572
Columbia University
$526,802
Morgan Stanley
$514,881
General Electric (NBC)
$499,130
Latham & Watkins
$493,835
US Government
$491,420"
Now these are contributions that are aggregated by the particular entity employed by the giver. Any of them look familiar?
Note that the two companies in this discussion are high up the list. Also ABS was a beneficiary of AIG bailout as well.
Now for the McCain contributors:
Merrill Lynch
$373,595
Citigroup Inc
$322,051
Morgan Stanley
$273,452
Goldman Sachs
$230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co
$228,107
US Government
$208,379
AT&T Inc
$202,438
Wachovia Corp
$195,063
Credit Suisse Group
$183,353
UBS AG
$183,079
PricewaterhouseCoopers
$167,900
Bank of America
$166,026
US Army
$165,370
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
$159,596
Blank Rome LLP
$154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP
$146,437
US Dept of Defense
$143,605
FedEx Corp
$131,974
Lehman Brothers
$126,057
Bear Stearns
$117,498
Hmmm. The same guys appear both places, and near the top. Note that the two in last place on McCain's list didn't make the Obama list, and they are no longer with us. That and what is below may point out why Lehman Bros., Goldman Sach's biggest competitor was allowed to fail. Of course, Obama was not elected yet.
Now Goldman Sachs did have more going for it than campaign contributions. They have actually been in charge of making policy at least since Robert Rubin was Clinton's Sec/Treas. Then we had Summers, then Paulson, and now Geithner, with Summers making sort of a re-run in the White House. All from Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs was there at the creation of the bubble, and at the end, and now at the "recovery."
Basically, what we have is the coyotes guarding the henhouse.
Isn't this a wild way to run a government?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Cramming
After kicking around yellow dogs yesterday, today has been slow.
We changed out our telephone, cable and Internet providers this morning, so have been playing a bit with that.
Its Uverse, and so far, so good.
The summer doldrums are here, and Congress is rushing to get a bunch of bad legislation through while most people are thinking about vacation, or wishing they had the money to go.
From what I read, a lot of Democratic Congressmen were taken aback by their constituents' reactions to the "cap and trade" bill. I cannot understand why.
One would think that anybody with any sense would have realized that if you pass a huge tax without reading a word of the bill, most folks might get a little upset.
Watch them try to do the same thing with socialized medicine. I saw where Rahm, Obama's man, has threated to cram the socialized medicine down our throats whether we like it or not.
Hope and change.
We changed out our telephone, cable and Internet providers this morning, so have been playing a bit with that.
Its Uverse, and so far, so good.
The summer doldrums are here, and Congress is rushing to get a bunch of bad legislation through while most people are thinking about vacation, or wishing they had the money to go.
From what I read, a lot of Democratic Congressmen were taken aback by their constituents' reactions to the "cap and trade" bill. I cannot understand why.
One would think that anybody with any sense would have realized that if you pass a huge tax without reading a word of the bill, most folks might get a little upset.
Watch them try to do the same thing with socialized medicine. I saw where Rahm, Obama's man, has threated to cram the socialized medicine down our throats whether we like it or not.
Hope and change.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Of Yellow Dogs and Stuff
From back when I was a Democrat until this very day, I have known Democrats who would swear they would vote for a yellow dog, if he was a Democrat.
There are a lot who actually would....its not a joke.
There is a lot of "tribalism" that goes into political parties, I guess.
I was always a bit too independent to turn over my political choices to a group that anybody could join, so although I supported Democrats back in the day with whom I didn't fully agree, I didn't pull the straight ticket lever but once. That was in 1964. Big mistake. Have not done it since.
But back to yellow dogs....I have seen some candidates who wouldn't be able to stand up to a good yellow dog, and from both parties. I have nothing against yellow dogs, per se. In fact, I like dogs, even yellow ones.
Where I take issue with those Democrats is when the candidate doesn't measure up to a good dog, and they will vote for him or her anyway, if they run for election as a Democrat. (To treat everyone the same, I would feel the same way about a Republican who would do such.)
Of course, there are some elections where neither of the parties offer a decent choice. One that comes to mind was the last election for governor here. There were lots of candidates, but I wasn't real happy with either of the two parties' candidates, and the independent, although an old friend, just didn't measure up. So I voted for old UT graduate Kinky Friedman, because I knew he couldn't screw things up nearly as badly as the others could. But Kinky, although really a Democrat, wasn't a yellow dog.
I came up with this yellow dog business today as I was pondering some of the emails about Obama that are flying about the Internet. You know, the ones about his birth certificate, his travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport, his college records, and all that stuff.
Now, I have no idea whether those allegations are true or false.
But what I do know is that the allegations have been out there since before the election (many are based upon his books).
That raises the question: how can anyone have voted for him without knowing the answers to the questions?
The so-called mainstream press never pressed any of it, although private parties tried to. I understand Obama has spent nearly a million dollars keeping it all hushed up. He, like any individual, has a right to privacy, but it would seem that a candidate for President would not be concerned about a birth certificate. Or college records (we had Bush's). Or passport records.
I have been in public service for over 40 years, and my life has been an open book. I never had anything that I was sufficiently ashamed of to hide. Why is Obama ashamed?
He could very easily solve the problems and answer the questions.
And that is what got me to thinking about the yellow dog.
There are a lot who actually would....its not a joke.
There is a lot of "tribalism" that goes into political parties, I guess.
I was always a bit too independent to turn over my political choices to a group that anybody could join, so although I supported Democrats back in the day with whom I didn't fully agree, I didn't pull the straight ticket lever but once. That was in 1964. Big mistake. Have not done it since.
But back to yellow dogs....I have seen some candidates who wouldn't be able to stand up to a good yellow dog, and from both parties. I have nothing against yellow dogs, per se. In fact, I like dogs, even yellow ones.
Where I take issue with those Democrats is when the candidate doesn't measure up to a good dog, and they will vote for him or her anyway, if they run for election as a Democrat. (To treat everyone the same, I would feel the same way about a Republican who would do such.)
Of course, there are some elections where neither of the parties offer a decent choice. One that comes to mind was the last election for governor here. There were lots of candidates, but I wasn't real happy with either of the two parties' candidates, and the independent, although an old friend, just didn't measure up. So I voted for old UT graduate Kinky Friedman, because I knew he couldn't screw things up nearly as badly as the others could. But Kinky, although really a Democrat, wasn't a yellow dog.
I came up with this yellow dog business today as I was pondering some of the emails about Obama that are flying about the Internet. You know, the ones about his birth certificate, his travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport, his college records, and all that stuff.
Now, I have no idea whether those allegations are true or false.
But what I do know is that the allegations have been out there since before the election (many are based upon his books).
That raises the question: how can anyone have voted for him without knowing the answers to the questions?
The so-called mainstream press never pressed any of it, although private parties tried to. I understand Obama has spent nearly a million dollars keeping it all hushed up. He, like any individual, has a right to privacy, but it would seem that a candidate for President would not be concerned about a birth certificate. Or college records (we had Bush's). Or passport records.
I have been in public service for over 40 years, and my life has been an open book. I never had anything that I was sufficiently ashamed of to hide. Why is Obama ashamed?
He could very easily solve the problems and answer the questions.
And that is what got me to thinking about the yellow dog.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Whither climate change? What is the real agenda?
It is noted that the new term adopted by the environmental "sky is falling" group is "climate change" to replace the old term "global warming."
But its perhaps not so unexpected when you consider that the globe mysteriously stopped warming in 1998. That occurred even though manmade CO2 emissions have continued to rise.
Unfortunately, that has not stopped the "Chicken Littles" out there from demanding that we take great and painful steps to limit the use of fossil fuels in the U. S. even if few others do.
One must question why we should do this to cure a problem that doesn't even exist.
There are two articles out lately that explain what is happening. Unfortunately, our media in the United States is ignoring the fact that there are reputable scientists that disagree with the "consensus" view that we are having a catastrophic warming event. The two I mention are from the United Kingdom.
Ian Plimer, in an interview in the Spectator, has another view:
‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."
In his book, Heaven and Earth, he pointed out that:
".... polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."
During the period of growing gapes and citrus in southern Scotland, the world was far warmer than now, and warmer than predicted in the next hundred years.
His view of the various computer models used to forecast future climate change is correct:
"...I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
So there you have it. There is more from him, but let's consider the article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.
He speaks of the G-8 summit last week which committed to fight "global warming", or "climate change", if you will:
"Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train."
He goes on:
"What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago."
He then talks of the paper by George Carlin at the EPA, which the EPA attempted to suppress:
"In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy."
Why the rush to judgment on a ruinous "cap and trade" bill in the United States? Now that the global warming "consensus" is beginning to collapse, and the globe is cooling again, would it not be better to stop and study the issue more thoroughly?
In a deep recession it just does not make sense to usher in radical rules that will greatly increase everyone's energy bills. Particularly when the worls biggest CO2 emitter is not going to join in. So if Obama and the Democrats have their way, we are going to ruin our economy while giving China, India and other developing nations a giant competitive edge over Americans.
That makes so little sense that I have to wonder if their agenda is not to solve the imagined global warming, but to "transform" our economy into something the left can be proud of, but at the cost of millions of jobs.
Sheer madness.
But its perhaps not so unexpected when you consider that the globe mysteriously stopped warming in 1998. That occurred even though manmade CO2 emissions have continued to rise.
Unfortunately, that has not stopped the "Chicken Littles" out there from demanding that we take great and painful steps to limit the use of fossil fuels in the U. S. even if few others do.
One must question why we should do this to cure a problem that doesn't even exist.
There are two articles out lately that explain what is happening. Unfortunately, our media in the United States is ignoring the fact that there are reputable scientists that disagree with the "consensus" view that we are having a catastrophic warming event. The two I mention are from the United Kingdom.
Ian Plimer, in an interview in the Spectator, has another view:
‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."
In his book, Heaven and Earth, he pointed out that:
".... polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."
During the period of growing gapes and citrus in southern Scotland, the world was far warmer than now, and warmer than predicted in the next hundred years.
His view of the various computer models used to forecast future climate change is correct:
"...I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
So there you have it. There is more from him, but let's consider the article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.
He speaks of the G-8 summit last week which committed to fight "global warming", or "climate change", if you will:
"Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train."
He goes on:
"What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago."
He then talks of the paper by George Carlin at the EPA, which the EPA attempted to suppress:
"In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy."
Why the rush to judgment on a ruinous "cap and trade" bill in the United States? Now that the global warming "consensus" is beginning to collapse, and the globe is cooling again, would it not be better to stop and study the issue more thoroughly?
In a deep recession it just does not make sense to usher in radical rules that will greatly increase everyone's energy bills. Particularly when the worls biggest CO2 emitter is not going to join in. So if Obama and the Democrats have their way, we are going to ruin our economy while giving China, India and other developing nations a giant competitive edge over Americans.
That makes so little sense that I have to wonder if their agenda is not to solve the imagined global warming, but to "transform" our economy into something the left can be proud of, but at the cost of millions of jobs.
Sheer madness.
Starting
Starting the blogging day hoping that the tree we just planted in the back yard prospers.
And also looking forward to the fresh blackeyed peas my bride has been shelling.
They are cooking now and sure smell good.
One of the simple pleasures for an old retired guy.
And also looking forward to the fresh blackeyed peas my bride has been shelling.
They are cooking now and sure smell good.
One of the simple pleasures for an old retired guy.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Transformation of America
William Katz who blogs at Urgent Agenda has a bit about something written by Frank Miele, the managing editor of a small Montana newpaper, The Daily Inter Lake.
The commentary is about Obama and Abraham Lincoln, for whom Obama has shown a great deal of admiration.
Mr. Katz blogs about wisdom and genius and how it can be confused. And warns about Obama relying on genius as opposed to wisdom. Its good, and you should go there and read it.
But Miele's commentary is much more than that.
He quotes Obama:
"Let us transform this nation," Obama said in his 2007 announcement address. "Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy... And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity.... Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America.... Let's be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis... Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil... Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here."
Miele says we should not now be surprised at what Obama is doing. He told us well in advance.
Obama also talked about greatly transforming our economy long before the economy went into the tank. When he said that, the economy was humming along.
From the very beginning, he has had the notion of doing away with our old economic system, capitalism, and substituting.........what?
Given that Obama was raised in a Marxist leaning household and has an awful lot of friends who are extremely radical, one can figure out where he wants to take us pretty easily.
Our intrepid editor goes on to say:
"Thus, to the extent that he is indeed the "towering genius' his admirers perceive, President Obama may quote Lincoln, but he certainly doesn't want to be him. He wants not to preserve the work of presidents past, but to "transform" the nation, to "take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America," as he said in Springfield...."
This is right on point. What Obama wants to do is not preserve our nation as it has been, but to transform it into something else. And he is busy trying to do just that.
Miele further states:
"Now, Abraham Lincoln was not a prophet –– just a very wise man. His words provide food for thought, but should not themselves be considered an indictment of any individual. Nonetheless, for those of us who are concerned that Barack Obama means exactly what he says, and does indeed intend to "transform" the nation, they are one more opportunity to make a plea for "preservation" of the "temple of liberty" instead."
We still have a chance to stop this, but people must wake up to what is happening. Congress cannot be trusted to do it. For crying out loud, they spent nearly a trillion dollars without reading the bill, and passed the "cap and trade" bill in the House with nobody having read it as well.
We need a political revolution in this country to counter the one that Obama and the left is trying to cram down our throats. Unfortunately, neither of our political parties is up to the task.
Will we all wake up?........... In time?
Who will lead the revolution? Is anybody out there?
The commentary is about Obama and Abraham Lincoln, for whom Obama has shown a great deal of admiration.
Mr. Katz blogs about wisdom and genius and how it can be confused. And warns about Obama relying on genius as opposed to wisdom. Its good, and you should go there and read it.
But Miele's commentary is much more than that.
He quotes Obama:
"Let us transform this nation," Obama said in his 2007 announcement address. "Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy... And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity.... Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America.... Let's be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis... Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil... Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here."
Miele says we should not now be surprised at what Obama is doing. He told us well in advance.
Obama also talked about greatly transforming our economy long before the economy went into the tank. When he said that, the economy was humming along.
From the very beginning, he has had the notion of doing away with our old economic system, capitalism, and substituting.........what?
Given that Obama was raised in a Marxist leaning household and has an awful lot of friends who are extremely radical, one can figure out where he wants to take us pretty easily.
Our intrepid editor goes on to say:
"Thus, to the extent that he is indeed the "towering genius' his admirers perceive, President Obama may quote Lincoln, but he certainly doesn't want to be him. He wants not to preserve the work of presidents past, but to "transform" the nation, to "take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America," as he said in Springfield...."
This is right on point. What Obama wants to do is not preserve our nation as it has been, but to transform it into something else. And he is busy trying to do just that.
Miele further states:
"Now, Abraham Lincoln was not a prophet –– just a very wise man. His words provide food for thought, but should not themselves be considered an indictment of any individual. Nonetheless, for those of us who are concerned that Barack Obama means exactly what he says, and does indeed intend to "transform" the nation, they are one more opportunity to make a plea for "preservation" of the "temple of liberty" instead."
We still have a chance to stop this, but people must wake up to what is happening. Congress cannot be trusted to do it. For crying out loud, they spent nearly a trillion dollars without reading the bill, and passed the "cap and trade" bill in the House with nobody having read it as well.
We need a political revolution in this country to counter the one that Obama and the left is trying to cram down our throats. Unfortunately, neither of our political parties is up to the task.
Will we all wake up?........... In time?
Who will lead the revolution? Is anybody out there?
The War Against the Producers
The summer doldrums are here. News is slow, but there are some good blogs out there.
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece over at Pajamas Media. I won't try to blog about it. Its all too good to break down. Its called The War Against the Producers.
The subtitle at Pajamas asks the good question:
"How can rewarding unproductive areas of the economy and punishing the engines of the economy possibly work?"
Hanson proceeds to answer that question and others. Perhaps the best quote from the artice is:
"Final observations: Obama brilliantly conflated the Wall Street class with the upper-tier of Main Street in Animal Farm fashion: the former gets lectured, but stays enriched through bailouts; the latter takes both the moral hit for the former’s crimes and greed and the actual hit in higher taxes.
(Nota bene: the new Democrats, in Prince Charles fashion, like the taste and culture of the hyper-rich, who care little about taxes, are sensitive behind their ramparts to the less well off, and know high-culture (think Streisand, Gates, Soros, the Georgetown/Hollwood/Silicon Valley, Upper East Side, Cambridge, Mass, set). These aristoi despise the wheeler-dealer, always on the move, uppity, wanna-get-rich scrambler that is desperately trying to get his get kid through Public U, and add a wing on his gross MacMansion, while towing his outboard up to the lake for five hours of water-skiing, without an opera, symphony, or NPR analysis on the radio)."
This is a very good article, is very thoughtful, and needs to be read in its entirety. Go here to do so.
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece over at Pajamas Media. I won't try to blog about it. Its all too good to break down. Its called The War Against the Producers.
The subtitle at Pajamas asks the good question:
"How can rewarding unproductive areas of the economy and punishing the engines of the economy possibly work?"
Hanson proceeds to answer that question and others. Perhaps the best quote from the artice is:
"Final observations: Obama brilliantly conflated the Wall Street class with the upper-tier of Main Street in Animal Farm fashion: the former gets lectured, but stays enriched through bailouts; the latter takes both the moral hit for the former’s crimes and greed and the actual hit in higher taxes.
(Nota bene: the new Democrats, in Prince Charles fashion, like the taste and culture of the hyper-rich, who care little about taxes, are sensitive behind their ramparts to the less well off, and know high-culture (think Streisand, Gates, Soros, the Georgetown/Hollwood/Silicon Valley, Upper East Side, Cambridge, Mass, set). These aristoi despise the wheeler-dealer, always on the move, uppity, wanna-get-rich scrambler that is desperately trying to get his get kid through Public U, and add a wing on his gross MacMansion, while towing his outboard up to the lake for five hours of water-skiing, without an opera, symphony, or NPR analysis on the radio)."
This is a very good article, is very thoughtful, and needs to be read in its entirety. Go here to do so.
Will we wake up?
Starting the blogging day wondering if the people of the United States will realize what a drastic transformation of our country Obama is attempting in time to stop it.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The best and brightest and hoi polloi
Well, I am getting tired of stories that concern Sarah Palin, but Jack Kelly has a good commentary in the Toledo Blade about all the Palin controversy.
It doesn't really matter about Palin. She was thrust into a situation she was far from prepared for.
But what he says is instructive without regard to that issue.
He points out some things that were written by Princeton Professor Angelo Codevilla:
"The distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are being overshadowed by that between what we might call the 'Court Party,' made up of the well-connected who see themselves as potters of the great American clay, and the 'Country Party,' the many more who are tired of being treated as clay."
He goes on to point out:
"People in the Court Party think it proper they should decide what kind of cars the hoi polloi in fly-over country should drive and how much medical care they may have. Theirs is an aristrocracy not of birth but of connections, connections forged mostly by where they went to school. "
He concludes:
"The hoi polloi in fly-over country are watching the self-styled best and brightest ruin the economy while feathering their own nests. If this leads to a revolt at the polls in 2010 and 2012, the hoi polloi are more likely to look for leadership from the person who best exemplifies their values and expresses their anger than to those who, by the Court Party's definition, are more qualified."
How could anyone say it better? My thanks to the good Professor, and to Jack Kelly for bringing him to us.
Go read the whole thing.
With a hat tip to William Katz over at Urgent Agenda.
It doesn't really matter about Palin. She was thrust into a situation she was far from prepared for.
But what he says is instructive without regard to that issue.
He points out some things that were written by Princeton Professor Angelo Codevilla:
"The distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are being overshadowed by that between what we might call the 'Court Party,' made up of the well-connected who see themselves as potters of the great American clay, and the 'Country Party,' the many more who are tired of being treated as clay."
He goes on to point out:
"People in the Court Party think it proper they should decide what kind of cars the hoi polloi in fly-over country should drive and how much medical care they may have. Theirs is an aristrocracy not of birth but of connections, connections forged mostly by where they went to school. "
He concludes:
"The hoi polloi in fly-over country are watching the self-styled best and brightest ruin the economy while feathering their own nests. If this leads to a revolt at the polls in 2010 and 2012, the hoi polloi are more likely to look for leadership from the person who best exemplifies their values and expresses their anger than to those who, by the Court Party's definition, are more qualified."
How could anyone say it better? My thanks to the good Professor, and to Jack Kelly for bringing him to us.
Go read the whole thing.
With a hat tip to William Katz over at Urgent Agenda.
Obama unveiled
We have learned long ago that we could not trust our domestic media on things Obama, not even those that are "fair and balanced."
So we have to turn to the foreign press to hear the truth.
Rex Murphy of Canada's Globe and Mail hits the truth hard with his comments today: Obama on the flying trapeze.
"We've been watching over the past two weeks, willingly or not, the wrong icon. Michael Jackson's a distraction. Barack Obama is the superstar of the world, the real celebrity. And because he's President of the world's foremost power (for now), his actions have real, not just symbolic, meaning."
Real meaning is right, and he goes on:
"We've seen him in action for a bit more than six months. What we can say with confidence, now that we have the evidence of his actions, is that had he run on (a) transforming the U.S. economy by massive federal government intervention, (b) taking an owner's stake in the automobile industry, (c) transforming the rules of America's energy economy, (d) instituting a national health-care system - all of these simultaneously and in the centre of a financial meltdown - Barack Obama wouldn't merely have lost the election, he wouldn't have got as many votes as gnarly old Ross Perot did in an election long past. He wouldn't, in other words, have beaten a bad-tempered, egotistical spoiler."
How true this is. :
"Mr. Obama has taken the real crisis of the U.S. (and world) economy and used it as the screen and lever for a massive agenda of transformation, a transformation that calls for expenditures on a scale never before seen in the history of government on this planet......."
He talks about some of the things initiated by Bush, and then:
"These initiatives, however, were almost instantly overlaid with the Obama agenda of massive government expansion, or attempted expansion, into everything from the auto industry to health care - all of them sold with cries of urgency and executed with reckless haste. Massive bills were passed before there were even copies of them to read. The U.S. government's debt is being swollen beyond all previous records."
This is all true, and he could not have undertaken this without having planned it all along. He planned this, but campaigned on "hope and change" without saying what, and he has reneged on numerous promises made during the campign.
So why don't we hear about this from our own press? Are they completely in the tank for Obama?
Of course. Thank goodness the foreign press is still honest.
Go read the whole thing.
A tip of the hat to Instapundit.
So we have to turn to the foreign press to hear the truth.
Rex Murphy of Canada's Globe and Mail hits the truth hard with his comments today: Obama on the flying trapeze.
"We've been watching over the past two weeks, willingly or not, the wrong icon. Michael Jackson's a distraction. Barack Obama is the superstar of the world, the real celebrity. And because he's President of the world's foremost power (for now), his actions have real, not just symbolic, meaning."
Real meaning is right, and he goes on:
"We've seen him in action for a bit more than six months. What we can say with confidence, now that we have the evidence of his actions, is that had he run on (a) transforming the U.S. economy by massive federal government intervention, (b) taking an owner's stake in the automobile industry, (c) transforming the rules of America's energy economy, (d) instituting a national health-care system - all of these simultaneously and in the centre of a financial meltdown - Barack Obama wouldn't merely have lost the election, he wouldn't have got as many votes as gnarly old Ross Perot did in an election long past. He wouldn't, in other words, have beaten a bad-tempered, egotistical spoiler."
How true this is. :
"Mr. Obama has taken the real crisis of the U.S. (and world) economy and used it as the screen and lever for a massive agenda of transformation, a transformation that calls for expenditures on a scale never before seen in the history of government on this planet......."
He talks about some of the things initiated by Bush, and then:
"These initiatives, however, were almost instantly overlaid with the Obama agenda of massive government expansion, or attempted expansion, into everything from the auto industry to health care - all of them sold with cries of urgency and executed with reckless haste. Massive bills were passed before there were even copies of them to read. The U.S. government's debt is being swollen beyond all previous records."
This is all true, and he could not have undertaken this without having planned it all along. He planned this, but campaigned on "hope and change" without saying what, and he has reneged on numerous promises made during the campign.
So why don't we hear about this from our own press? Are they completely in the tank for Obama?
Of course. Thank goodness the foreign press is still honest.
Go read the whole thing.
A tip of the hat to Instapundit.
Recession and revenues
I see that the sales tax collections in Texas are down 11.2% from last year.
Usually, Texas is less affected by recession than other states, but with the decline of oil and gas production, that is not true any more.
This means that all levels of government will have to cut back, of course.
Thankfully, we are one of the states that has a balanced budget requirement in our Constitution, so we don't have the terrible debt obligations that the liberal states do.
Memo to the politicians in Washington: we CAN have good frugal government. All it takes is discipline.
We have not seen that in DC in decades.
Will Texans be asked to bail out California?
Usually, Texas is less affected by recession than other states, but with the decline of oil and gas production, that is not true any more.
This means that all levels of government will have to cut back, of course.
Thankfully, we are one of the states that has a balanced budget requirement in our Constitution, so we don't have the terrible debt obligations that the liberal states do.
Memo to the politicians in Washington: we CAN have good frugal government. All it takes is discipline.
We have not seen that in DC in decades.
Will Texans be asked to bail out California?
Hot
Belatedly starting the blogging day wondering if it will go over 100 deg. F. today, like it has the past few. Hoping not. Its only 93 now.
It was a cool Spring and the early summer has been cool as well, but the heat came back with a vengeance this week. I think the highest it got was 107F.
Two good things about this time of year.
One is that the fresh vegetables are now available at the farmers' markets. My bride and I gathered up a lot of peas, squash and other goodies today.
Then we came home and I planted some flowers in a couple of blank spots in the yard.
The second good thing about this time of year is that football is only six weeks away. That begins by far my favorite time of the year...the Fall, when footballs are in the air.
It was a cool Spring and the early summer has been cool as well, but the heat came back with a vengeance this week. I think the highest it got was 107F.
Two good things about this time of year.
One is that the fresh vegetables are now available at the farmers' markets. My bride and I gathered up a lot of peas, squash and other goodies today.
Then we came home and I planted some flowers in a couple of blank spots in the yard.
The second good thing about this time of year is that football is only six weeks away. That begins by far my favorite time of the year...the Fall, when footballs are in the air.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Robert Reich almost gets it right
I was cruising along on a slow news day, and came across this post by Robert Reich over on TPM Muckraker. Being a glutton for punishment, I undertook to read it.
To my surprise, he sounded very much like he agreed with my thoughts on the Recession.
We aren't going to have a V shaped recovery or a U shaped one....people are comparing to the wrong prior recessions. This one is different.
Our economy is 70% consumers, and most of them are out of money, have little or no credit, and no home equity to borrow against.
So far, so good. This is all true.
He goes on:
"Eventually consumers will replace cars and appliances and other stuff that wears out, but a recovery can't be built on replacements. Don't expect businesses to invest much more without lots of consumers hankering after lots of new stuff. And don't rely on exports. The global economy is contracting."
Still right so far except for China and India. Then we get to this:
"...This economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years -- featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity,..................."
Wow!. Its hard to believe. This liberal guy is right on track. I am thinking by now that he will finish up with a plan.
Sorry, no plan.
He finishes the above quote this way:
"........not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere -- simply cannot be sustained."
Now tell me what increasing carbon in the atmosphere did to cause our economic difficulties.
Nothing, absolutely nothing.
But it certainly will have something to do with the recovery, or the lack thereof.
What the dang fool is proposing apparently, is that we can't start the new economy, which we need, without carbon controls, which is the fastest way known to destroy what economy is left.
He says there is more to come on the issue of the new economy, I asssume without carbon.
I can hardly wait
The left will never learn.
To my surprise, he sounded very much like he agreed with my thoughts on the Recession.
We aren't going to have a V shaped recovery or a U shaped one....people are comparing to the wrong prior recessions. This one is different.
Our economy is 70% consumers, and most of them are out of money, have little or no credit, and no home equity to borrow against.
So far, so good. This is all true.
He goes on:
"Eventually consumers will replace cars and appliances and other stuff that wears out, but a recovery can't be built on replacements. Don't expect businesses to invest much more without lots of consumers hankering after lots of new stuff. And don't rely on exports. The global economy is contracting."
Still right so far except for China and India. Then we get to this:
"...This economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years -- featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity,..................."
Wow!. Its hard to believe. This liberal guy is right on track. I am thinking by now that he will finish up with a plan.
Sorry, no plan.
He finishes the above quote this way:
"........not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere -- simply cannot be sustained."
Now tell me what increasing carbon in the atmosphere did to cause our economic difficulties.
Nothing, absolutely nothing.
But it certainly will have something to do with the recovery, or the lack thereof.
What the dang fool is proposing apparently, is that we can't start the new economy, which we need, without carbon controls, which is the fastest way known to destroy what economy is left.
He says there is more to come on the issue of the new economy, I asssume without carbon.
I can hardly wait
The left will never learn.
Tyrannical Ambition and Servile Temptation
News is slow today, and my Internet connection has been slow as well.
Over at Power Line, they have had a series of posts by Paul Rahe, the author of the book Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift.
Rahe examines the writings of Montesquieu, Rousseau and de Toqueville and how they "anticipated the propensity of the modern liberal republic to drift in the direction of "soft despotism"- a condition that arises within a democracy when paternalistic state power expands and gradually undermines the spirit of self government."
This has now happened in the Western World now that the United States has arrived there.
The posts on Power Line add to that. There are three of them:
Obama's Tyrannical Ambition;
The Servile Temptation, Part I; and,
The Servile Tempation, Part II.
It is just impossible to break these down into "fair use" quotes and maintain the integrity of the posts.
I recommend you follow the links and read them.
Over at Power Line, they have had a series of posts by Paul Rahe, the author of the book Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift.
Rahe examines the writings of Montesquieu, Rousseau and de Toqueville and how they "anticipated the propensity of the modern liberal republic to drift in the direction of "soft despotism"- a condition that arises within a democracy when paternalistic state power expands and gradually undermines the spirit of self government."
This has now happened in the Western World now that the United States has arrived there.
The posts on Power Line add to that. There are three of them:
Obama's Tyrannical Ambition;
The Servile Temptation, Part I; and,
The Servile Tempation, Part II.
It is just impossible to break these down into "fair use" quotes and maintain the integrity of the posts.
I recommend you follow the links and read them.
The Founding Fathers
Starting the blogging day wondering what the Founding Fathers of our country would think about what we have allowed our government to become.
I cannot imagine men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton or Franklin would approve of it.
Nor do I.
I cannot imagine men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton or Franklin would approve of it.
Nor do I.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
China passes US auto market in first half sales
It was bound to happen sometime. Associated Press is reporting that the Chinese car market has surpassed the United States for the first half of this year.
No matter that we are in a severe recession, this is a big blow that has been coming on for a generation.
Poor fiscal management by our government and by the people for the last few decades is catching up with a vengenace.
Extremely poor management and greedy unions, along with government interference, has ruined our domestic auto industry. Now, much of it has been nationalized.
All of the above have driven a lot of our manufacturing capability overseas, with a goodly part to China.
Our economy was said to be fine, because we had the "services" industry, primarily meaning that the big financial institutions were thriving.
Well, now were are seeing the results of all of that.
We have spent trillions trying to cover the losses by the "service" industry, we are in a deep recession because of their excesses, and jobs are continuing to disappear at a frightening rate.
In spite of this, our politicians insist on trying to revive the same old economic paradigm that has led us to this situation.
Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible.
The ball is now in the Democrats' court and they are utterly failing to consider proper policies, instead wanting to borrow and spend our way out of a deep hole caused by borrowing and spending far too much.
They are still digging, and the hole is getting deeper by the day.
No matter that we are in a severe recession, this is a big blow that has been coming on for a generation.
Poor fiscal management by our government and by the people for the last few decades is catching up with a vengenace.
Extremely poor management and greedy unions, along with government interference, has ruined our domestic auto industry. Now, much of it has been nationalized.
All of the above have driven a lot of our manufacturing capability overseas, with a goodly part to China.
Our economy was said to be fine, because we had the "services" industry, primarily meaning that the big financial institutions were thriving.
Well, now were are seeing the results of all of that.
We have spent trillions trying to cover the losses by the "service" industry, we are in a deep recession because of their excesses, and jobs are continuing to disappear at a frightening rate.
In spite of this, our politicians insist on trying to revive the same old economic paradigm that has led us to this situation.
Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible.
The ball is now in the Democrats' court and they are utterly failing to consider proper policies, instead wanting to borrow and spend our way out of a deep hole caused by borrowing and spending far too much.
They are still digging, and the hole is getting deeper by the day.
Food stamp record
In April a record 33.8 million people received food stamps, a fifth consecutive monthly record. Surprisingly according to Bloomberg, Texas was the state with the most recipients, above California.
Expect the numbers to continue increasing, particulaly since the politically (mis)directed stimulus is having little effect on anything but government.
Its a shame that the entire stimulus couldn't have just been given directly to the people rather than to governments.
Tax rebates would have done far more to help those who need the help. But the "party of the people" really isn't. Its all about government.
Expect the numbers to continue increasing, particulaly since the politically (mis)directed stimulus is having little effect on anything but government.
Its a shame that the entire stimulus couldn't have just been given directly to the people rather than to governments.
Tax rebates would have done far more to help those who need the help. But the "party of the people" really isn't. Its all about government.
Climate bill delayed
Looks like the Senate may have gotten an ear full while back home for the Fourth of July. Now the Washington Post reports that hearings on the "cap and trade" bill have been put off until September.
"The leading Senate committee responsible for developing the climate change legislation has delayed by at least a month its crafting of a bill, leaving less time for Congress to fulfill Obama's desire to enact a law this year.
"We'll do it as soon as we get back" in September from a month-long break, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced. "
The delay means that the bill probably won't be ready for Obama to display at the Copenhagen talks on a climate change treaty in December, but there is disagreement about that:
"Asked if the delay in her committee hurt chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit ... we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."
But she did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December in time for the Copenhagen meeting.
"I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better," Boxer said.
Senator Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which also has a significant role in developing the climate legislation, was more pessimistic. "I don't even expect it to come up this year" in the Senate, he told reporters. "
This is one of the worst bills to ever come before the Congress. Passing it now (if ever) would create very serious pain in an already suffering economy.
Its sheer stupidity.
The Chicken Littles in the Democratic Party, rather than avoiding a falling sky, are much more likely to bring it down on all of us.
"The leading Senate committee responsible for developing the climate change legislation has delayed by at least a month its crafting of a bill, leaving less time for Congress to fulfill Obama's desire to enact a law this year.
"We'll do it as soon as we get back" in September from a month-long break, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced. "
The delay means that the bill probably won't be ready for Obama to display at the Copenhagen talks on a climate change treaty in December, but there is disagreement about that:
"Asked if the delay in her committee hurt chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit ... we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."
But she did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December in time for the Copenhagen meeting.
"I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better," Boxer said.
Senator Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which also has a significant role in developing the climate legislation, was more pessimistic. "I don't even expect it to come up this year" in the Senate, he told reporters. "
This is one of the worst bills to ever come before the Congress. Passing it now (if ever) would create very serious pain in an already suffering economy.
Its sheer stupidity.
The Chicken Littles in the Democratic Party, rather than avoiding a falling sky, are much more likely to bring it down on all of us.
Avoiding a lot of CO2 without ruining the country
Next Big Future says improving and adding to existing nukes can save a lot of CO2 emissions. They say that the US currently avoids 700 million tons of CO2 emissions from existing nukes.
Other things, including annular fuel, speeding the buildout of new nuke plants, and building liquid flouride thorium reactors to reduce coal burning would help as well. They list other alternatives, as well.
Annular fuel would increase existing nukes' output by 50%.
Developing these things would make a lot more sense than Obama's "cap and tax" bill, and would certainly be a lot cheaper in the long run.
But Obama's pals wouldn't get to make the big bucks trading the CO2 "permits" provided for under the bill.
I have never understood why we are unable to get our government to act sensibly on energy. Nuclear and other technology is there if the government would just get out of the way.
Go and read the story.
Other things, including annular fuel, speeding the buildout of new nuke plants, and building liquid flouride thorium reactors to reduce coal burning would help as well. They list other alternatives, as well.
Annular fuel would increase existing nukes' output by 50%.
Developing these things would make a lot more sense than Obama's "cap and tax" bill, and would certainly be a lot cheaper in the long run.
But Obama's pals wouldn't get to make the big bucks trading the CO2 "permits" provided for under the bill.
I have never understood why we are unable to get our government to act sensibly on energy. Nuclear and other technology is there if the government would just get out of the way.
Go and read the story.
The Only Thing Stimulated In a Government Stimulus
Ed Morrissey has an article over at AIP that discusses what the "stimulus" bill stimulates:
"A new GAO review of the $787 billion stimulus package tells us what we should have known all along. When government spends money themselves to stimulate the economy rather than let citizens have their own money to spend, the only part of the economy that gets stimulated is government itself. " (My emphasis)
Who would have guessed? The liberals in Congress rushed this bill through with anyone even having a chance to read it, without any input, and without letting the public in on any of it.
This is the kind of hope and change we can expect from the Democrats, and probabaly from a lot of the Republicans as well. Over three quarters of a trillion dollars, which is equal to about $100,000 per household of four, is blown proping up government programs that need to be pared back.
What could your family have done with that money? Better than the government, I would bet.
Read the whole article.
And think about getting a new bunch of politicians.
"A new GAO review of the $787 billion stimulus package tells us what we should have known all along. When government spends money themselves to stimulate the economy rather than let citizens have their own money to spend, the only part of the economy that gets stimulated is government itself. " (My emphasis)
Who would have guessed? The liberals in Congress rushed this bill through with anyone even having a chance to read it, without any input, and without letting the public in on any of it.
This is the kind of hope and change we can expect from the Democrats, and probabaly from a lot of the Republicans as well. Over three quarters of a trillion dollars, which is equal to about $100,000 per household of four, is blown proping up government programs that need to be pared back.
What could your family have done with that money? Better than the government, I would bet.
Read the whole article.
And think about getting a new bunch of politicians.
“America’s long-awaited fiscal train wreck is now under way.”
That is a quote from Morgan Stanley's Chief Economist, Richard Berner. This from Politico:
"By “train wreck,” he means out-of-control federal budget deficits that he’s sure will finally drag the economy under — as if we weren’t already feeling badly enough about its shaky state."
I don't know that this should be a surprise to anybody. We have been on this course for several decades.
Now it is catching up with us.
Some propose that we spend and borrow even more to "cure" the problem.
Utter madness.
"By “train wreck,” he means out-of-control federal budget deficits that he’s sure will finally drag the economy under — as if we weren’t already feeling badly enough about its shaky state."
I don't know that this should be a surprise to anybody. We have been on this course for several decades.
Now it is catching up with us.
Some propose that we spend and borrow even more to "cure" the problem.
Utter madness.
You know its a slow news day when
Drudge links to a story about Michelle Obama's purse that she carried in Russia in the New York Daily News. Seems somebody thought it was a $6,000 purse, while the White House says it was an $875 purse.
Who cares? Its their money. Let them spend it whatever way they want.
I am a lot more concerned about the silly ways Obama plans to spend the tax money I pay.
Everyone should be. Its madness.
Who cares? Its their money. Let them spend it whatever way they want.
I am a lot more concerned about the silly ways Obama plans to spend the tax money I pay.
Everyone should be. Its madness.
Brown Manure, Not Green Shoots
That is the title of a column over at Forbes by Nouriel Roubini, the economics guru from New York University who has probably been the most right so far on the current financial crisis.
His comments are on the June unemployment report, which, of course, was pretty grim at 9.5% unemployment.
He says its not the end:
" With the current rate of job losses, it is very clear that the unemployment rate could reach 10% by later this summer--around August or September--and will be closer to 10.5%, if not 11%, by year-end. I expect the unemployment rate is going to peak at around 11% at some point in 2010, well above historical standards for even severe recessions."
He may well be too optimistic. This is by far the worst recession since the Great Depression, and if anything goes wrong....well, another Great Depression could occur.
And the jobs report is not all there is to it:
"The job market report is essentially the tip of the iceberg. It's a significant signal of the weaknesses in the economy. It affects consumer confidence. It affects labor income. It affects consumption. It affects the willingness of firms to start increasing production. It has significant consequences of the housing market. And it has significant consequences, of course, on the banking system."
Does this latter mean that the government is going to feel like it has to pour a lot more money into the bottomless pit that is our banking system? Just think that for every trillion dollars that goes to the banks every household of four could get $130,000 in cash. There has been several trillion, and much of it has been added to the national debt. So instead of getting the cash, each household has, in effect, given it to the banks.
Roubini does not have an optimistic outlook:
"....large budget deficits and their monetization are going to lead--toward the end of next year and in 2011--to an increase in expected inflation that may lead to a further increase in 10-year treasuries and other long-term government bond yields, and thus mortgage and private-market rates. Together with higher oil prices driven up by this wall of liquidity rather than fundamentals alone, this could be the double whammy that could push the economy into a double-dip or W-shaped recession by late 2010 or 2011. "
My take is that the outlook is grim for another year or two, and that the government is going to try another round of bank bailouts, along with having severe pressures put on to bail out profligate state and local governments. Don't look for anything for the people, though. This government is more interested in taking care of the politicians and the banks. I do suspect, however, that ACORN will get its "share."
His comments are on the June unemployment report, which, of course, was pretty grim at 9.5% unemployment.
He says its not the end:
" With the current rate of job losses, it is very clear that the unemployment rate could reach 10% by later this summer--around August or September--and will be closer to 10.5%, if not 11%, by year-end. I expect the unemployment rate is going to peak at around 11% at some point in 2010, well above historical standards for even severe recessions."
He may well be too optimistic. This is by far the worst recession since the Great Depression, and if anything goes wrong....well, another Great Depression could occur.
And the jobs report is not all there is to it:
"The job market report is essentially the tip of the iceberg. It's a significant signal of the weaknesses in the economy. It affects consumer confidence. It affects labor income. It affects consumption. It affects the willingness of firms to start increasing production. It has significant consequences of the housing market. And it has significant consequences, of course, on the banking system."
Does this latter mean that the government is going to feel like it has to pour a lot more money into the bottomless pit that is our banking system? Just think that for every trillion dollars that goes to the banks every household of four could get $130,000 in cash. There has been several trillion, and much of it has been added to the national debt. So instead of getting the cash, each household has, in effect, given it to the banks.
Roubini does not have an optimistic outlook:
"....large budget deficits and their monetization are going to lead--toward the end of next year and in 2011--to an increase in expected inflation that may lead to a further increase in 10-year treasuries and other long-term government bond yields, and thus mortgage and private-market rates. Together with higher oil prices driven up by this wall of liquidity rather than fundamentals alone, this could be the double whammy that could push the economy into a double-dip or W-shaped recession by late 2010 or 2011. "
My take is that the outlook is grim for another year or two, and that the government is going to try another round of bank bailouts, along with having severe pressures put on to bail out profligate state and local governments. Don't look for anything for the people, though. This government is more interested in taking care of the politicians and the banks. I do suspect, however, that ACORN will get its "share."
Wondering if.....
Starting the blogging day wondering if the clowns in our Congress ever intend to start actually reading and understanding the important legislation they hurriedly pass.
The stimulus bill and now the disastrous "cap and trade" bill were rushed through the House before anyone had even a chance to read them. Is somebody trying to sneak something through?
Hope and change at work.
We need to throw them all out.
The stimulus bill and now the disastrous "cap and trade" bill were rushed through the House before anyone had even a chance to read them. Is somebody trying to sneak something through?
Hope and change at work.
We need to throw them all out.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Times changes its mind....or did it?
Now the Times(London) is reporting a historic breathrough on global warming at the G-8. What has happened to change things?
Well, for one thing, Hu Jintao of China went home.
For another, Barack Obama arrived.
What the new announcement is saying is that the G-8 agrees to limit "global warming" to 2 degrees Centigrade, and cut back emissions 80% by 2050. The other countries agree to the 2 degrees, but no reductions.
There is no word on whether they also agreed to hold back the tide.
Doing this is economic suicide for all 8 countries, particularly the United States.
Well, for one thing, Hu Jintao of China went home.
For another, Barack Obama arrived.
What the new announcement is saying is that the G-8 agrees to limit "global warming" to 2 degrees Centigrade, and cut back emissions 80% by 2050. The other countries agree to the 2 degrees, but no reductions.
There is no word on whether they also agreed to hold back the tide.
Doing this is economic suicide for all 8 countries, particularly the United States.
Climate change deal fails
The Times (London) is reporting that the major developing countries (China, India) are refusing to set a target for reducing their emissions targets unless the developed countries reduce their targets substantially by 2020.
Anyone who thinks that they will do any such thing is dreaming. They will gain a great advantage over the developed countries if those countries follow the liberal pied pipers down the lane of unilateral reductions.
If Obama's "cap and trade" legislation should pass, it would leave our industries even more at the mercy of China and India. It would be like handing them millions of jobs for nothing.
Yet the left in our country, obsessed with the "chicken little" aspects of alleged "global warming" would lead us down that path, and right in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
That makes a lot of sense, doesn't?
Anyone who thinks that they will do any such thing is dreaming. They will gain a great advantage over the developed countries if those countries follow the liberal pied pipers down the lane of unilateral reductions.
If Obama's "cap and trade" legislation should pass, it would leave our industries even more at the mercy of China and India. It would be like handing them millions of jobs for nothing.
Yet the left in our country, obsessed with the "chicken little" aspects of alleged "global warming" would lead us down that path, and right in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
That makes a lot of sense, doesn't?
Stimulus plan
Shawn Ritenour over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute has the best analysis of the stimulus and its effects that I have seen. The stimulus I am taling about is the one that was rushed through in January without anyone having read it and that has failed miserably to stimulate the economy as promised.
There is much more in the article, but this sums it up perfectly:
"From an economic perspective, Obama's stimulus plan is equivalent to a giant welfare scheme. Instead of the money going to lower income Americans, however, it is meant to go to municipal bureaucrats of various stripes. Instead of productive American citizens determining what to do with their own scarce resources, the state is stepping in and dictating how they will be used. Consequently, such spending is essentially government consumption, which is what vulgar Keynesians think we need now more than ever. Such economists are shocked — shocked! — to find out that Americans are now saving any increases in income instead of blowing it on even more consumer goods. Not to worry, however. If private citizens do not consume enough for official tastes, the government always can.
Certainly we can expect that when the government spends a trillion dollars this will provide a positive statistical boost to GDP, if for no other reason that government spending makes up a significant portion of GDP. Where, however, does the state get the money to spend? Ah, as Hamlet might say, there's the rub. There are only three ways the government can obtain funds to throw at all their shovel-ready projects and all three leave in their wake negative economic consequences."
Read the whole thing.
There is much more in the article, but this sums it up perfectly:
"From an economic perspective, Obama's stimulus plan is equivalent to a giant welfare scheme. Instead of the money going to lower income Americans, however, it is meant to go to municipal bureaucrats of various stripes. Instead of productive American citizens determining what to do with their own scarce resources, the state is stepping in and dictating how they will be used. Consequently, such spending is essentially government consumption, which is what vulgar Keynesians think we need now more than ever. Such economists are shocked — shocked! — to find out that Americans are now saving any increases in income instead of blowing it on even more consumer goods. Not to worry, however. If private citizens do not consume enough for official tastes, the government always can.
Certainly we can expect that when the government spends a trillion dollars this will provide a positive statistical boost to GDP, if for no other reason that government spending makes up a significant portion of GDP. Where, however, does the state get the money to spend? Ah, as Hamlet might say, there's the rub. There are only three ways the government can obtain funds to throw at all their shovel-ready projects and all three leave in their wake negative economic consequences."
Read the whole thing.
In California, even the IOUs are owed
California just keeps getting picked upon, but its just too fat a target to avoid.
The New York Times is now reporting that even folks who were to be given IOUs aren't getting them.
"....across California on Tuesday, many vendors who had been told they would receive the i.o.u.’s instead of actual money said they had not yet received them. And if they do not arrive soon, they may be hard to turn into cash."
The IOUs, which do not have the full faith and credit of the state behind them, are supposedly being handed out to vendors and others because California is too broke to pay cash. Apparently they are only promises of promises to pay.
Meanwhile Drudge reports that the California legislature has gotten into a food fight....literally. The Democrats, who control the lege, are trying to pass some food regulations rather than deal with the budget. The budget, of course, is at an impass because one side wants to cut spending, and the other wants to raise taxes.
With California's credit ratings headed into the tank, one might think that they would be able to cut expenditures and balance the budget, particularly after voters in May soundly rejected new taxes to do so. But the Democrats, controlled by the large public employee unions, refuse to budge.
Meanwhile, as the Times points out:
"People expecting money from the state who do not get a warrant by Friday have three choices. They can try to find an alternative bank or credit union willing to deal with someone who is not a customer, they can hold the warrant until it matures and collect the interest, or they can try their luck in secondary markets, where some people are already seeking to buy i.o.u.’s at a discount."
As Obama's favorite minister would say; "The chickens, they are a comin' home to roost."
The New York Times is now reporting that even folks who were to be given IOUs aren't getting them.
"....across California on Tuesday, many vendors who had been told they would receive the i.o.u.’s instead of actual money said they had not yet received them. And if they do not arrive soon, they may be hard to turn into cash."
The IOUs, which do not have the full faith and credit of the state behind them, are supposedly being handed out to vendors and others because California is too broke to pay cash. Apparently they are only promises of promises to pay.
Meanwhile Drudge reports that the California legislature has gotten into a food fight....literally. The Democrats, who control the lege, are trying to pass some food regulations rather than deal with the budget. The budget, of course, is at an impass because one side wants to cut spending, and the other wants to raise taxes.
With California's credit ratings headed into the tank, one might think that they would be able to cut expenditures and balance the budget, particularly after voters in May soundly rejected new taxes to do so. But the Democrats, controlled by the large public employee unions, refuse to budge.
Meanwhile, as the Times points out:
"People expecting money from the state who do not get a warrant by Friday have three choices. They can try to find an alternative bank or credit union willing to deal with someone who is not a customer, they can hold the warrant until it matures and collect the interest, or they can try their luck in secondary markets, where some people are already seeking to buy i.o.u.’s at a discount."
As Obama's favorite minister would say; "The chickens, they are a comin' home to roost."
Our Congress(ional staff) at work
Seems like the computers at the Congress got slowed down because so many staffers were watching the MJ funeral on the web.
According to Politico:
"Another staffer tells Shenan that everyone in Cannon is watching the memorial. "All the offices have closed their doors" and "literally the halls are empty." Plus, there was a sighting of a teary-eyed intern. "Thank God we have late votes today," added the staffer, "I would body-check anyone who tried to change the channel to CSPAN right now.""
Doesn't it make every one of you warm and fuzzy to think that these are the people making laws for us?
According to Politico:
"Another staffer tells Shenan that everyone in Cannon is watching the memorial. "All the offices have closed their doors" and "literally the halls are empty." Plus, there was a sighting of a teary-eyed intern. "Thank God we have late votes today," added the staffer, "I would body-check anyone who tried to change the channel to CSPAN right now.""
Doesn't it make every one of you warm and fuzzy to think that these are the people making laws for us?
Citizens' revolt in California
Back in May, California had 6 ballot intiatives designed to fund the gap between state income and outgo, and 5 of them were heavily backed by the political class, the big newspapers, and the public sector unions. The sixth one limited elected officials' salaries.
Guess which one passed and which five failed. You got it.
Now, the political class is up in arms. They won't cut back anywhere. So California is broke and issuing IOUs instead of paying in cash.
Reason has piece by Matt Welsh that covers it pretty well:
"During the last two decades, the Golden State has been transformed from what was once known as the nation’s most anti-labor outpost to a state essentially run by public-sector unions. Nearly three in five publicsector workers are unionized, compared to less than two in five public employees in other states. The Democratic Party, which is fully in hock to unions, has controlled the legislature and most statewide posts, with the notable exception of the governor’s mansion, for more than a decade. That means more government workers, higher salaries, and drastically higher pension costs. "
Now, the public is rebelling, and its about time.
"California is the Ghost of Federal Government Future."
Is what has been happening in California something we can look for in the rest of the country? Well, consider this:
"The federal government is now run by a president and Congress more responsive to union concerns than any in at least two decades. The same bloat currently bogging down statehouses and city halls is being duplicated in boomtown Washington, D.C. President Barack Obama even brought Andy Stern in to help warn Schwarzenegger that federal stimulus money would not be disbursed to California unless the governor rescinded some proposed state job cuts. Though that threat was later withdrawn, Schwarzenegger at press time was pushing for a measly work force reduction of 2 percent."
So, what can we conclude?
"Faced with a political class that ignored bureaucratic inefficiency, that demanded higher taxes, that filled the newspapers with scare stories about people who will literally die as a result of budget cuts, the citizens of one of the bluest states in the nation collectively said we just don’t believe you anymore. If even California’s famous fruits and nuts can call the statists’ bluff, there may be hope for the rest of the country. "
Read the whole thing here.
Guess which one passed and which five failed. You got it.
Now, the political class is up in arms. They won't cut back anywhere. So California is broke and issuing IOUs instead of paying in cash.
Reason has piece by Matt Welsh that covers it pretty well:
"During the last two decades, the Golden State has been transformed from what was once known as the nation’s most anti-labor outpost to a state essentially run by public-sector unions. Nearly three in five publicsector workers are unionized, compared to less than two in five public employees in other states. The Democratic Party, which is fully in hock to unions, has controlled the legislature and most statewide posts, with the notable exception of the governor’s mansion, for more than a decade. That means more government workers, higher salaries, and drastically higher pension costs. "
Now, the public is rebelling, and its about time.
"California is the Ghost of Federal Government Future."
Is what has been happening in California something we can look for in the rest of the country? Well, consider this:
"The federal government is now run by a president and Congress more responsive to union concerns than any in at least two decades. The same bloat currently bogging down statehouses and city halls is being duplicated in boomtown Washington, D.C. President Barack Obama even brought Andy Stern in to help warn Schwarzenegger that federal stimulus money would not be disbursed to California unless the governor rescinded some proposed state job cuts. Though that threat was later withdrawn, Schwarzenegger at press time was pushing for a measly work force reduction of 2 percent."
So, what can we conclude?
"Faced with a political class that ignored bureaucratic inefficiency, that demanded higher taxes, that filled the newspapers with scare stories about people who will literally die as a result of budget cuts, the citizens of one of the bluest states in the nation collectively said we just don’t believe you anymore. If even California’s famous fruits and nuts can call the statists’ bluff, there may be hope for the rest of the country. "
Read the whole thing here.
Congress and medicine
Starting the blogging day wondering why, if socialized medicine is so good for us, Congress is exempting itself from the rules.
Of course, Congress is very good at exempting itself from onerous rules it passes for those of us in the hinterland.
We need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Of course, Congress is very good at exempting itself from onerous rules it passes for those of us in the hinterland.
We need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Debt is capitalism’s dirty little secret
Ben Funnell has a commentary over on the Financial Times that makes some very interest and thought provoking points.
We have seen a huge concentration of wealth over the years into the hands of the elite, and this has been made possible by debt, which enabled the bulk of the population to maintains its living standards while it was occurring. This is capitalism's "dirty little secret."
He points out that incomes have increased for the highest 20% of earners by 60% since 1970, but have decreased by 10% for the rest. He points out that the Walton Family, of Wal Mart fame is wealthier than the bottom 100 million people in the US put together. If that is true, we have a problem, that is certain.
He goes on to say:
"Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem."
Now here comes the crash, so what do we do? The debt is no longer available to help cover the problem.
"What can be done? First, although it is not ideal, we should not be too hasty about abandoning the capitalist model. It is less bad than any other system yet invented. But we should redouble our efforts to increase productivity through innovation and creating new markets; simply squeezing lower-income workers is a bad option, which helped get us into this mess in the first place. This requires investment in education and research. Second, we have to learn to live within our means. This means spending less than we earn, perhaps doing without the BMWs, flat-screen television sets and leather sofas. Third, we should be careful in distributing the higher tax burden that we will inevitably have to bear over the coming decade. Very high marginal tax rates did not work in the 1970s and will not work now. That said, income disparity at current levels is a political time-bomb that needs to be dealt with. Finally, we should all come to terms with the fact that these are structural issues needing structural solutions; they need to be enforced over a longer time period than any one government’s term. So we need a new political consensus, one aimed at reducing overall debt levels while reducing inequality by encouraging education, entrepreneurship and investment in innovation."
So, do we need a political revolution? Both of our political parties are tied to the old paradigm. If this is the problem, neither one of them is really positioned to do the right thing. They are both bought and paid for by the special interests that have gotten us where we are.
The changes he proposes, if his premise is correct, will be difficult to implement. Every politician in DC and every bureaucrat working for the government has a vested interest in the staus quo.
This seems to be something we should research. If he is right, our democracy can't last long without changes.
The last of his recommendations, which I have boldened, should be done whether or not his entire premise is correct.
If so, who will lead the revolution?
We have seen a huge concentration of wealth over the years into the hands of the elite, and this has been made possible by debt, which enabled the bulk of the population to maintains its living standards while it was occurring. This is capitalism's "dirty little secret."
He points out that incomes have increased for the highest 20% of earners by 60% since 1970, but have decreased by 10% for the rest. He points out that the Walton Family, of Wal Mart fame is wealthier than the bottom 100 million people in the US put together. If that is true, we have a problem, that is certain.
He goes on to say:
"Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem."
Now here comes the crash, so what do we do? The debt is no longer available to help cover the problem.
"What can be done? First, although it is not ideal, we should not be too hasty about abandoning the capitalist model. It is less bad than any other system yet invented. But we should redouble our efforts to increase productivity through innovation and creating new markets; simply squeezing lower-income workers is a bad option, which helped get us into this mess in the first place. This requires investment in education and research. Second, we have to learn to live within our means. This means spending less than we earn, perhaps doing without the BMWs, flat-screen television sets and leather sofas. Third, we should be careful in distributing the higher tax burden that we will inevitably have to bear over the coming decade. Very high marginal tax rates did not work in the 1970s and will not work now. That said, income disparity at current levels is a political time-bomb that needs to be dealt with. Finally, we should all come to terms with the fact that these are structural issues needing structural solutions; they need to be enforced over a longer time period than any one government’s term. So we need a new political consensus, one aimed at reducing overall debt levels while reducing inequality by encouraging education, entrepreneurship and investment in innovation."
So, do we need a political revolution? Both of our political parties are tied to the old paradigm. If this is the problem, neither one of them is really positioned to do the right thing. They are both bought and paid for by the special interests that have gotten us where we are.
The changes he proposes, if his premise is correct, will be difficult to implement. Every politician in DC and every bureaucrat working for the government has a vested interest in the staus quo.
This seems to be something we should research. If he is right, our democracy can't last long without changes.
The last of his recommendations, which I have boldened, should be done whether or not his entire premise is correct.
If so, who will lead the revolution?
For those who think we can deal with China....
The Financial Times has a story, Four Rio Tinto staff detained in China. Seems there is a dispute over the negotiations over a new contractual price for the iron ore Rio Tinto sells to China.
China is also mad because Rio Tinto backed out of a deal for a Chinese company to buy into Rio Tinto.
What a way to negotiate!
China is also mad because Rio Tinto backed out of a deal for a Chinese company to buy into Rio Tinto.
What a way to negotiate!
The funeral story we should be following, but won't
Right after I posted the foregoing on Michael Jackson's funeral coverage, a friend sent me a story from the Orlando Sentinel.
Its a story of a Little League father who loved his son, and when it came down to it was willing to give his life that his son might play. Briefly, here is what happened:
"As Austin was swimming in that mountain river, he got caught in the current, his foot got jammed beneath a rock and he couldn't pull free. We all say we would give our own life for the life of our child, and we would. But Mike did it. He actually did it.
He plunged into the icy river like a shot, made his way to Austin and got himself stuck between two rocks to keep his balance. He then proceeded to hold his son's head above water for 30 minutes until he and others were able to dislodge Austin, who is named after the city where Mike went to college and rooted on his treasured Texas Longhorns."
They got a rope to Austin and the Dad gave a last heave and they pulled Austin free. But:
"Moments after he saw Austin being lifted to safety, he died in the river of hypothermia, exhaustion, drowning."
He was buried on July 2. No TV. no national coverage, no sympathy from our free press, except in Orlando.
This Dad was a better man than an infinite number of Michael Jacksons.
Perhaps we can determine the character of people by whom they celebrate. If so, there are a lot of Americans who fail the test.
Sad.
Its a story of a Little League father who loved his son, and when it came down to it was willing to give his life that his son might play. Briefly, here is what happened:
"As Austin was swimming in that mountain river, he got caught in the current, his foot got jammed beneath a rock and he couldn't pull free. We all say we would give our own life for the life of our child, and we would. But Mike did it. He actually did it.
He plunged into the icy river like a shot, made his way to Austin and got himself stuck between two rocks to keep his balance. He then proceeded to hold his son's head above water for 30 minutes until he and others were able to dislodge Austin, who is named after the city where Mike went to college and rooted on his treasured Texas Longhorns."
They got a rope to Austin and the Dad gave a last heave and they pulled Austin free. But:
"Moments after he saw Austin being lifted to safety, he died in the river of hypothermia, exhaustion, drowning."
He was buried on July 2. No TV. no national coverage, no sympathy from our free press, except in Orlando.
This Dad was a better man than an infinite number of Michael Jacksons.
Perhaps we can determine the character of people by whom they celebrate. If so, there are a lot of Americans who fail the test.
Sad.
Excess is right
A friend just called me to say that he had scrolled through his TV to find the news, and had discovered that the nine major networks had set aside 3 hours of broadcasting to cover Michael Jackson's funeral.
William Katz over at urgent Agenda has some excellent comments. Among them:
"Say nothing bad about the dead. I'm sure Jackson was an exciting entertainer. But the excess here is vulgar, a sad reflection on the values of many Americans. "
Vulgar, indeed. If one wanted to see exactly what is wrong with our news system, here it is.
It also speaks to the inanity in so many lives that they would spend that time on a person of that character, without regard to how good an entertainer one might think he was.
Shameful.
William Katz over at urgent Agenda has some excellent comments. Among them:
"Say nothing bad about the dead. I'm sure Jackson was an exciting entertainer. But the excess here is vulgar, a sad reflection on the values of many Americans. "
Vulgar, indeed. If one wanted to see exactly what is wrong with our news system, here it is.
It also speaks to the inanity in so many lives that they would spend that time on a person of that character, without regard to how good an entertainer one might think he was.
Shameful.
Calfornia's bonds now near "junk" status
CNNMoney.com is now reporting that Fitch has reduced California's debt to a rating of BBB, just shy of "junk" status. And they are still on "watch" for further downgrade. The other ratings agencies still have California rated higher, but one must remember that they rated all that subprime paper that has defaulted AAA up until the day it all crashed.
Would you buy California paper?
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the big banks won't accept their IOU's.
Of course, the state's employees and the politicians don't have to worry, they got cash. The next to worthless IOUs are held by the poor and elderly, who really need the money to live on. (California says the IOUs will be repaid in October, but they will be in a $17 billion hole then.)
What's more, the state has now added to the pain by changing the terms of the IOUs to require a notarized bill of sale before anyone but the recipient can cash one. That means that the holders are stuck with them until they can be redeemed.
Talk about a train wreck.
Would you buy California paper?
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the big banks won't accept their IOU's.
Of course, the state's employees and the politicians don't have to worry, they got cash. The next to worthless IOUs are held by the poor and elderly, who really need the money to live on. (California says the IOUs will be repaid in October, but they will be in a $17 billion hole then.)
What's more, the state has now added to the pain by changing the terms of the IOUs to require a notarized bill of sale before anyone but the recipient can cash one. That means that the holders are stuck with them until they can be redeemed.
Talk about a train wreck.
Who killed California's economy?
There's a good article at Forbes by Joel Kotkin that tries to answer that. He points out 5 suspects: the governor, the public employees, the environmentalists, the business community, and the public.
He is not kind to any of them, because all of them are responsible.
About the public sector:
"Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That's the mentality of California's 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state."
The environmentalists have their share of the blame:
"In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits."
The business community has failed to make its case:
"...so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter."
And the general public has also failed:
"At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots."
But the governor won't be much help:
" Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras. "
What needs to be said, though, is that what got California in trouble was excessive credit. They, like the United States, borrowed against the future without regard to having to pay back the money. They thought the party could go on forever, or at least it would be someone else's problem when the bills came due.
That is a terrible way to run a government. We have all been responsible at the national level. It is time we put a stop to it. Only we can do it.
He is not kind to any of them, because all of them are responsible.
About the public sector:
"Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That's the mentality of California's 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state."
The environmentalists have their share of the blame:
"In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits."
The business community has failed to make its case:
"...so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter."
And the general public has also failed:
"At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots."
But the governor won't be much help:
" Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras. "
What needs to be said, though, is that what got California in trouble was excessive credit. They, like the United States, borrowed against the future without regard to having to pay back the money. They thought the party could go on forever, or at least it would be someone else's problem when the bills came due.
That is a terrible way to run a government. We have all been responsible at the national level. It is time we put a stop to it. Only we can do it.
Wondering why
Starting the blogging day today wondering why Obama gets along better with dictators and tyrants that are our enemies than he does with democratically elected friends of the United States, particularly those in Britain, Germany and Israel.
Monday, July 6, 2009
July 6, 2009
Doing away with independent Inspectors General? It certainly looks like it. The Washington Post has the story.
Obama has already run off three of them, illegally, of course. The guy in charge of "hope and change" turns out to be another corrupt Chicago pol. No surprise except to those who drank the Koolaid.
The South Plainsman
The Best of the Web with James Taranto follows up my initial question of the day about Honduras with one of his own.
After the following quote from Rosalinda Cruz, a Justice on the Honduran Supreme Court:
"The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order," Cruz, 55, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. "There's no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.",
he asks his own question:
Why won't Obama listen? Does he have something against wise Latina women?
My speculation is that Obama won't listen because he likes and feels close to leftist dictators.
The South Plainsman
The Telegraph in the UK is saying the "US is lurching toward a debt explosion with interest rates on course to double."
That is not particularly a new concept, but it is rare to see the media actually report it. Of course this is from the UK, so the US media is not implicated in telling a bad truth about the economy. That would reflect upon their Messiah, Mr. Obama.
They quote a paper from 2003 by the senior Economist at the Federal Reserve, Thomas Laubach. You can read the paper here.
Really, what it says is that the more the government borrows and spends, the higher the debt gets and the higher interest rates go. Who knew?
Actually, they just predict a doubling of interest rates. My view is that they are quite likely to go even higher. But it doesn't matter. Any higher will prolong recovery.
The conclusion of the story:
"Should the cost of raising or refinancing public debt in the markets double, “the debt could just explode”, he said, adding that it would come to a head in “five to 10 years”. "
Have I worn out the Banana Republic reference? Sorry, it just keeps coming to mind.
The South Plainsman
14% Unemployment? Surely not. But that is what Louis Woodhill is predicting over at Real Clear Markets.
But what about simulus? Well, he says it won't work:
""Stimulus" is based upon the superstition that government borrowing and spending creates "demand". In reality, it does no such thing. "Stimulus" is like trying to raise the level of the Hudson River by dipping out a bucket of water, walking five feet downstream, and pouring it back in. The only difference between the Bush and Obama plans is that Obama's bucket is bigger (and will create more debt). Ironically, the July 2 jobs report prompted calls from leftist economists for Obama to go back to the river with an even bigger bucket."
His conclusion:
"Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse."
It is really that simple. Our problems are caused by too much government, too much spending and too much debt. Obama's main aims are to expand each of them as far as he can.
Anybody ever been broke before?
The South Plainsman
Correcting the President. Scott Ott, who writes some great satire at his site Scrappleface is now also blogging over at Townhall, seriously. He has a great piece posted on July 4 in response to Obama's invocation of the Founding Fathers this weekend to justify his programs. Go to the site for the whole thing, which is great. Here is the conclusion:
"Finally, Mr. President, the 13 colonies did not become free and independent states by confiscating wealth from the productive sector of society and doling it out to the unproductive sector in a way that guarantees the perpetual enslavement of both.
"This new nation, conceived in liberty, was brought forth by people who said 'Enough' to a tyrant who capriciously ruled from afar -- people who were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor that succeeding generations might live the freedom they bought with blood.
"Mr. President when you compare your socialized insurance program, your speculative wealth confiscation program or your Niagara Falls of spending with the endeavors of those bold patriots, you trivialize their sacrifice while you crown yourself with the Styrofoam diadem of a clown."
Well said.
The South Plainsman
California IOUs. According to the Financial Times, Wall Street is gearing up to trade in California's IOUs. And so are opportunistic entrepreneurs on Craigslist.
“If you are receiving a California IOU and you need cash immediately,
please contact me. I may be of assistance,” reads one posting."
How much are those things worth? Well, one guy wants to pay half price:
"Brandon Schlichter, a 23-year-old self-employed online marketer and blogger from
Columbus, Ohio, is among those advertising on Craigslist. He is hoping to buy
the IOUs for about half face value and has set up a website to connect buyers
and sellers for 5-10 per cent commission."
Will US Treasuries be next? Don't be so sure they won't if Obama and the liberals in Congress have their way.
Does the term "Banana Republic" ring a bell with anyone?
The South Plainsman
Robert McNamara has died. The Washington Post accurately calls him the "architect" of the Viet Nam War, which he was.
I have never understood why the voters blame the Republicans for the war when the Democrats started it, screwed it up royally, then did everything they could to undermine Republican effforts to end it honorably.
I guess if you have the press, fiction can become some version of truth. We are seeing more of that phenomenum every day.
The South Plainsman
Good news for coffee drinkers! From the University of South Florida:
"The new findings provide evidence that caffeine could be a viable 'treatment' for established Alzheimer's disease, and not simply a protective strategy," said lead author Gary Arendash, PhD, a USF neuroscientist with the Florida ADRC. "That's important because caffeine is a safe drug for most people, it easily enters the brain, and it appears to directly affect the disease process."
The whole story is here.
The South Plainsman
Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times, says Palin should have just said "no." I have to agree with that. She was not ready for prime time.
He goes on to point out that her popularity has as much to do with class as ideology
In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president
represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow
up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.
She probably never understood the wringer she would be put through for agreeing to run with McCain, until it happened. Woefully unprepared, she blew it. She "tarnished" the "democratic ideal."
But, he says, its also been tarnished by the elites themselves, including the media, by the way they have treated her. I have to agree that they went far overboard, and still are doing so. The purveyors of "hope and change" have continued with the same old gutter politics we have come to expect from them. They hate anyone that is not like them.
Shame.
The South Plainsman
Kevin Hasset over at Bloomberg says that California's nightmare will cause Obamanomics a lot of trouble.The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.
The cause is simple, he says:
All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.
This sounds awfully familiar. In fact it seems like the pols in Washington have been doing the same thing for four decades.
The result will be the same, too. Busted!
The South Plainsman
Starting out the blogging day wondering why Obama is siding with the socialist/communist dictators in the Caribbean and South America, guys like Castro and Chavez, against the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras, who removed the President thereof for having violated their constitution. Birds of a feather?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
July 5, 2009
Sarah Palin
It seems the whole world is talking about Sarah Palin, and her resignation as Governor of Alaska.
What is she going to do? Is she still running for President? Is she leaving politics? Did she commit political suicide, or is it a smart tactic? Why in the world would she do that?
Some of those questions are impossible to answer....only she and time will be able to do that. The answer to the last question above may be easier.
Ever since she exploded upon the national scene with her appointment as McCain's VP, the liberals and the press (sorry for the redundancy) have scrutinized her every move and every word, all quite critically. They have even done the same to her family. In my seventy years, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Why would they hate her so? One could easily conclude that the have that visceral anti-Palin feeling because she scares them.
She is different from them. She is not an elite like they are. She is pretty much a down home ordinary type of lady who happened to be bright enough to get herself elected Governor of her state. She is not afraid to take on the left, but had a good record of bi-partisanship in Alaska before the destruction began in earnest.
Her speech at the GOP Convention electrified the base of the party, something that neither John McCain nor any of the other candidates could do. She was not up on the national issues, and was not really ready for prime time, but she struck a real chord with the people who were dissatisfied with the nominee and all of the other choices. This is probably what frightened the left.
So the left set out to destroy her. They have done a lot of damage to her and her family. Much of what they did has been beyond the pale. We will see if that ever comes back to haunt them.
Will she be back? I suspect so. A friend pointed out that in 2020 she will only be 52. That is prime age for national leaders.
Will she come back prepared? We will see.
She is going to have to spend some time in the political wilderness, study, learn, get around and meet people, and build a base in the electorate.
Perhaps with the resignation, the media will now go elsewhere for a while.
The South Plainsman
David Boaz talks about how our current politicians from both political powers misuse quotes and misstate beliefs of the Founders of our country for their own purposes in The Politicians and the Founders over at Cato. Both Obama and McCain were guilty of this in their radio broadcasts this weekend. His conclusion after having given examples:
"....Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders."
Read it all.
The South Plainsman
John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes Mark Steyn who is discussing horrors of the British medical system:
"......When we quote stories like these at NRO, we get a lot of e-mail saying these are just "anecdotes". And yes, if you look on yourself as being part of a government health system of millions of people, getting a bedsore and dying in hideous pain is no big deal in the scheme of things. But I look on myself as being part of the Mark Steyn health system. So if I get a bedsore and die, as far as I'm concerned, that's a 100% systemic failure. The difference between government health care and a private system is that, under the latter, you're free to say, "This dump's filthy. I'm going to the state-of-the-art joint five miles up the road." You may have to get out your checkbook, but ultimately the decisions are yours.
In a government system, the decisions are the bureaucrats', and that's that. My father is currently ill, and the health "system" is doing its best to ensure it's fatal. When an ambulance has to be called, they take him to a different hospital according to the determinations of the bed-availability bureaucrats and which facility hasn't had to be quarantined for an infection outbreak. At the first hospital, he picked up C Difficile. At the second, MRSA. At the third, like the lady above, he got septicaemia. He's lying there now, enjoying the socialized health care jackpot - C Diff, MRSA, septicaemia. None of these ailments are what he went in to be treated for. They were given to him by the medical system......"
The discussion was about a woman who went to the hospital in Britain and died from a bedsore which was ignored by the staff.
Read the whole thing here.
The South Plainsman
Thought for the day:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same." Ronald Reagan
The South Plainsman
Now Biden chimes in: the US will not stand in the way of an Israel attack on Iran. Is it the official word? Or is he just running his mouth again with his brain disengaged? How would we know?
The New York Times has the story, and an editorial comment within the story:
"....Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran....."
A policy change for the Obama administration? Don't bet on it.
The South Plainsman
David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen hits the nail on the head when discussing affairs in the United States. Today he says we are crazy, and getting crazier for trying to solve problems in the economy which were caused by too much debt by adding much more debt. And , he says, even crazier, at the same time we are socializing medicine at great cost and initiating "cap and trade" law that will further ruin the economy. Crazy, indeed.
Read the whole thing. [link is fixed now]
The South Plainsman
The Saudis will do what we won't. The Times has the story. The Saudis will permit the Israelis to fly over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The US won't let them use the somewhat more direct route over Iraq.
The South Plainsman
It seems the whole world is talking about Sarah Palin, and her resignation as Governor of Alaska.
What is she going to do? Is she still running for President? Is she leaving politics? Did she commit political suicide, or is it a smart tactic? Why in the world would she do that?
Some of those questions are impossible to answer....only she and time will be able to do that. The answer to the last question above may be easier.
Ever since she exploded upon the national scene with her appointment as McCain's VP, the liberals and the press (sorry for the redundancy) have scrutinized her every move and every word, all quite critically. They have even done the same to her family. In my seventy years, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Why would they hate her so? One could easily conclude that the have that visceral anti-Palin feeling because she scares them.
She is different from them. She is not an elite like they are. She is pretty much a down home ordinary type of lady who happened to be bright enough to get herself elected Governor of her state. She is not afraid to take on the left, but had a good record of bi-partisanship in Alaska before the destruction began in earnest.
Her speech at the GOP Convention electrified the base of the party, something that neither John McCain nor any of the other candidates could do. She was not up on the national issues, and was not really ready for prime time, but she struck a real chord with the people who were dissatisfied with the nominee and all of the other choices. This is probably what frightened the left.
So the left set out to destroy her. They have done a lot of damage to her and her family. Much of what they did has been beyond the pale. We will see if that ever comes back to haunt them.
Will she be back? I suspect so. A friend pointed out that in 2020 she will only be 52. That is prime age for national leaders.
Will she come back prepared? We will see.
She is going to have to spend some time in the political wilderness, study, learn, get around and meet people, and build a base in the electorate.
Perhaps with the resignation, the media will now go elsewhere for a while.
The South Plainsman
David Boaz talks about how our current politicians from both political powers misuse quotes and misstate beliefs of the Founders of our country for their own purposes in The Politicians and the Founders over at Cato. Both Obama and McCain were guilty of this in their radio broadcasts this weekend. His conclusion after having given examples:
"....Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders."
Read it all.
The South Plainsman
John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes Mark Steyn who is discussing horrors of the British medical system:
"......When we quote stories like these at NRO, we get a lot of e-mail saying these are just "anecdotes". And yes, if you look on yourself as being part of a government health system of millions of people, getting a bedsore and dying in hideous pain is no big deal in the scheme of things. But I look on myself as being part of the Mark Steyn health system. So if I get a bedsore and die, as far as I'm concerned, that's a 100% systemic failure. The difference between government health care and a private system is that, under the latter, you're free to say, "This dump's filthy. I'm going to the state-of-the-art joint five miles up the road." You may have to get out your checkbook, but ultimately the decisions are yours.
In a government system, the decisions are the bureaucrats', and that's that. My father is currently ill, and the health "system" is doing its best to ensure it's fatal. When an ambulance has to be called, they take him to a different hospital according to the determinations of the bed-availability bureaucrats and which facility hasn't had to be quarantined for an infection outbreak. At the first hospital, he picked up C Difficile. At the second, MRSA. At the third, like the lady above, he got septicaemia. He's lying there now, enjoying the socialized health care jackpot - C Diff, MRSA, septicaemia. None of these ailments are what he went in to be treated for. They were given to him by the medical system......"
The discussion was about a woman who went to the hospital in Britain and died from a bedsore which was ignored by the staff.
Read the whole thing here.
The South Plainsman
Thought for the day:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same." Ronald Reagan
The South Plainsman
Now Biden chimes in: the US will not stand in the way of an Israel attack on Iran. Is it the official word? Or is he just running his mouth again with his brain disengaged? How would we know?
The New York Times has the story, and an editorial comment within the story:
"....Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran....."
A policy change for the Obama administration? Don't bet on it.
The South Plainsman
David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen hits the nail on the head when discussing affairs in the United States. Today he says we are crazy, and getting crazier for trying to solve problems in the economy which were caused by too much debt by adding much more debt. And , he says, even crazier, at the same time we are socializing medicine at great cost and initiating "cap and trade" law that will further ruin the economy. Crazy, indeed.
Read the whole thing. [link is fixed now]
The South Plainsman
The Saudis will do what we won't. The Times has the story. The Saudis will permit the Israelis to fly over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The US won't let them use the somewhat more direct route over Iraq.
The South Plainsman
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Musings
Just musing today after reading all of the frightening economic and political news.
The stock market is up good today on the news that Citi made a profit. I will bet it is not net of all the taxpayer dollars that have been and will be poured into it. Absurd.
There is news that the Democrats have introduced the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act." This is one that actually does away with freedom of employees to have a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize. Typically of Democrats, its all a lie.
I note that some people are saying that the next shoe to fall on the banks will be huge credit card losses. Not a surprise. Banks were sending out many cards for years, not only to adult people, but to children, dogs, cats and canaries. Without regard to credit ratings. Now we are going to have to bail the banks out for that, too.
Does anybody know how many trillions of dollars all this bailout business is going to cost?
No?
Didn't think so.
Does anybody know who is going to pay for it?
Your children and grandchildren, that's who.
Sigh.
The stock market is up good today on the news that Citi made a profit. I will bet it is not net of all the taxpayer dollars that have been and will be poured into it. Absurd.
There is news that the Democrats have introduced the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act." This is one that actually does away with freedom of employees to have a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize. Typically of Democrats, its all a lie.
I note that some people are saying that the next shoe to fall on the banks will be huge credit card losses. Not a surprise. Banks were sending out many cards for years, not only to adult people, but to children, dogs, cats and canaries. Without regard to credit ratings. Now we are going to have to bail the banks out for that, too.
Does anybody know how many trillions of dollars all this bailout business is going to cost?
No?
Didn't think so.
Does anybody know who is going to pay for it?
Your children and grandchildren, that's who.
Sigh.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Resuming, once again
It seems like every time I post here it has been a long time since the last one. When I started this, I had no intention of doing it daily. I just didn't want to be tied down to it. I still don't.
From the beginning, I have been operating under the strictures of the judicial code of ethics which limits us in commenting upon political candidates. As a result. most of my posts about politics were restrained, to say the least.
This year there are no candidates, so I can be less restrained, and that is a huge relief. There will be a lot to post about.
Last year I pointed out the strange relationships that now President Obama had with some really unsavory characters. The first three that come to mind are Reverend Wright, whose church Obama attended for around 20 years; Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer whom Obama did not know, but whose philosophy and methods Obama faithfully follows; and the terrorist, Bill Ayers, who should still be in prison, but instead holds a prestigious job at a university in Chicago.
What do these three have in common? They are all radicals wanting to greatly change America. But is it the change we want?
Alinsky worked closely with Communists in much of his organizing. He says he was not one, but he certainly empowered them within the labor movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
Reverend Wright, of course, follows the Black Liberation Theology introduced by James Cone. It, in turn, is based upon the Liberation Theology that originated in Central America which clearly had Marxist roots. He and his followers clearly hate our America.
Ayers? Well, Bill Ayers was a terrorist. People died as a result of his efforts. He has no regrets.
Strange bedfellows? Of course. And the list doesn't include his pals in the Chicago and Illinois political machines, some (or many?) of whom are headed to prison.
Are you now still wondering who Obama is? If so, just look at what he has tried to do just since the inauguration.
He is exactly who he said he was if you had listened and heard what he really was saying. He is a Marxist/Socialist redistributionist who will destroy our free economy in search of equality of outcomes. Just like Marx preached.
The gloves are off.
From the beginning, I have been operating under the strictures of the judicial code of ethics which limits us in commenting upon political candidates. As a result. most of my posts about politics were restrained, to say the least.
This year there are no candidates, so I can be less restrained, and that is a huge relief. There will be a lot to post about.
Last year I pointed out the strange relationships that now President Obama had with some really unsavory characters. The first three that come to mind are Reverend Wright, whose church Obama attended for around 20 years; Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer whom Obama did not know, but whose philosophy and methods Obama faithfully follows; and the terrorist, Bill Ayers, who should still be in prison, but instead holds a prestigious job at a university in Chicago.
What do these three have in common? They are all radicals wanting to greatly change America. But is it the change we want?
Alinsky worked closely with Communists in much of his organizing. He says he was not one, but he certainly empowered them within the labor movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
Reverend Wright, of course, follows the Black Liberation Theology introduced by James Cone. It, in turn, is based upon the Liberation Theology that originated in Central America which clearly had Marxist roots. He and his followers clearly hate our America.
Ayers? Well, Bill Ayers was a terrorist. People died as a result of his efforts. He has no regrets.
Strange bedfellows? Of course. And the list doesn't include his pals in the Chicago and Illinois political machines, some (or many?) of whom are headed to prison.
Are you now still wondering who Obama is? If so, just look at what he has tried to do just since the inauguration.
He is exactly who he said he was if you had listened and heard what he really was saying. He is a Marxist/Socialist redistributionist who will destroy our free economy in search of equality of outcomes. Just like Marx preached.
The gloves are off.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
"The World Turned Upside Down"
That is the title of the song played by the English band as the troops under Lord Cornwallis marched out to lay down their arms outside Yorktown on October 19, 1781. Indeed, the world was upside down in English eyes that day. After over six years of bloody rebellion and very hard times for the people of America, victory was at hand, although it took another two years before the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
It was amazing how Americans undertook every hardship, risked their lives and fortunes, to throw off the yoke of repressive government and bring freedom and liberty to their country.
Of course, it was not a country, yet. It was not until eight years after Yorktown that a new Constitution was hammered out and adopted, creating the United States of America.
It was not easy to get there, of course. Then, like now, there were factions in the body politic, and they fought fiercely for their points of view.
One faction wanted a very strong central government, perhaps even a monarchy; another did not trust government at all, and wanted a very weak central government.
The result came down on the side of a central government that was strong enough to regulate commerce between the states and with foreigners, and to provide for national defense, but with very detailed limitations on the exercise of other powers. The real story is that the Constitution would not have been adopted without the first ten amendments that were added. All of those placed very specific restrictions upon the government, and reserved all those powers not specified in the Constitution to the states and to the People.
Through the years, disputes have continued, with some wanting to expand the powers of the central government far beyond the limitations of the Constitution, and others fighting to maintain appropriate limitations as provided by the Constitution. In spite of the tendencies of the courts to tinker with the limitations over the years, we still have had limited government to a large extent.
Until now.
Now we see the Treasury of the United States, in league with the Federal Reserve, engaged in distributing trillions of dollars to private institutions, mostly financial, without a shred of legal basis either in the Constitution or laws of the United States. Worse, they won't even tell the people or the Congress the specifics of how much and to whom.
George W. Bush, the lame duck President of the United States, who was elected supposedly supporting limited government, is now authorizing acts that go far beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. The Congress seems to be acquiescing, although it has certainly not passed any legislation permitting what they are doing.
It seems like the President and the Congress cannot just say "No" when the expenditure of large sums of money is concerned. Mr. Bush never has. The Congress gets its campaign funds with the ability to pass out taxpayers' money, so there is no hope there.
If one looks at where the money is going, one can immediately see that it is going to the big contributors to our politicians. Just check out the contributions by all those institutions to our politicians. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into political campaigns the last few years from those companies and their employees. Now we see what they have bought.
The most outrageous part of all of this bailout business is that the people who did everything wrong, who created this economic mess, who profited from it, who ought to be the big losers, are the ones getting all of this Federal money.
Who pays you might ask?
Everyone who did the right thing, that's who will pay.
"The World Turned Upside Down," indeed.
It was amazing how Americans undertook every hardship, risked their lives and fortunes, to throw off the yoke of repressive government and bring freedom and liberty to their country.
Of course, it was not a country, yet. It was not until eight years after Yorktown that a new Constitution was hammered out and adopted, creating the United States of America.
It was not easy to get there, of course. Then, like now, there were factions in the body politic, and they fought fiercely for their points of view.
One faction wanted a very strong central government, perhaps even a monarchy; another did not trust government at all, and wanted a very weak central government.
The result came down on the side of a central government that was strong enough to regulate commerce between the states and with foreigners, and to provide for national defense, but with very detailed limitations on the exercise of other powers. The real story is that the Constitution would not have been adopted without the first ten amendments that were added. All of those placed very specific restrictions upon the government, and reserved all those powers not specified in the Constitution to the states and to the People.
Through the years, disputes have continued, with some wanting to expand the powers of the central government far beyond the limitations of the Constitution, and others fighting to maintain appropriate limitations as provided by the Constitution. In spite of the tendencies of the courts to tinker with the limitations over the years, we still have had limited government to a large extent.
Until now.
Now we see the Treasury of the United States, in league with the Federal Reserve, engaged in distributing trillions of dollars to private institutions, mostly financial, without a shred of legal basis either in the Constitution or laws of the United States. Worse, they won't even tell the people or the Congress the specifics of how much and to whom.
George W. Bush, the lame duck President of the United States, who was elected supposedly supporting limited government, is now authorizing acts that go far beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. The Congress seems to be acquiescing, although it has certainly not passed any legislation permitting what they are doing.
It seems like the President and the Congress cannot just say "No" when the expenditure of large sums of money is concerned. Mr. Bush never has. The Congress gets its campaign funds with the ability to pass out taxpayers' money, so there is no hope there.
If one looks at where the money is going, one can immediately see that it is going to the big contributors to our politicians. Just check out the contributions by all those institutions to our politicians. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into political campaigns the last few years from those companies and their employees. Now we see what they have bought.
The most outrageous part of all of this bailout business is that the people who did everything wrong, who created this economic mess, who profited from it, who ought to be the big losers, are the ones getting all of this Federal money.
Who pays you might ask?
Everyone who did the right thing, that's who will pay.
"The World Turned Upside Down," indeed.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Hope and change
It was only a few months ago that I posted the last item here, and what a change has occurred. Crude oil is below $40, the economy is in the tank, and everything said before seems hardly relevant any more.
During the time, I just decided to stop posting. There was too much going on with the election and the economy. I had plenty of thoughts, but everything was so fluid, I decided not to write and show my ignorance.
We are now in the Christmas season, and have a new President coming on board next month. This President will probably face a very difficult situation, perhaps as difficult as any President has ever faced.
Before I renew my posting, let us all be thankful for our great country, and pray for its continued strength. Let us also pray for the success of our new President, and that he will be successful in preserving our nation in a difficult time.
During the time, I just decided to stop posting. There was too much going on with the election and the economy. I had plenty of thoughts, but everything was so fluid, I decided not to write and show my ignorance.
We are now in the Christmas season, and have a new President coming on board next month. This President will probably face a very difficult situation, perhaps as difficult as any President has ever faced.
Before I renew my posting, let us all be thankful for our great country, and pray for its continued strength. Let us also pray for the success of our new President, and that he will be successful in preserving our nation in a difficult time.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
I'm Still Mad, Eddie
And Getting Madder by the Day
Back in the late 1970s, during the last oil "crisis" and Jimmy Carter was more or less in charge, his policies were much like our current Democrats' policies. Nothing but talk and CAFE standards and "windfall" profits taxes and price controls on domestic production. Remember MEOW? That stands for Carter's moral equivalent of war. That war was fought much like our current Democrats would fight any war: surrender.
During those days we had a Texan named Eddie Chiles who ran a bunch of radio and TV ads about the energy policies of the government. They all started out with "I'm mad." They were very good and told the truth about the effects of the misguided and harmful government policies.
Soon, bumper stickers started showing up all over Texas and Eastern New Mexico: "I'm Mad Too, Eddie." They were ubiquitous in the oil patch.
(Other favorites during those days were: "Let the Bastards Freeze to Death in the Dark" and "Please Don't Tell My Mom I work in the Oil Patch; She Still Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse." That first one may be predictive: I understand there may be real problems in the northeast with fuel oil this winter, and the authorities are concerned many might go without heat. That would be bad, indeed.)
Now, here we are, thirty years later, and nothing has been done to solve the problem of reliance on foreign oil.
Back then we did not have the technology to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf as we do now. We did not have the technology to drill in sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like we do now. As a result, back then there were no real alternatives to foreign oil but coal, nuclear, natural gas, and the far out hope that someday some new technologies would come along. What did we actually do? We built some coal and natural gas plants, but abandoned the cleanest and most efficient source of energy: nuclear.
Now the crisis is back on the front pages, after we have spent thirty years sending our dollars to foreigners for their oil. Trillions of dollars. Now we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreigners every year.
The cost of all of this is not just paying more for gasoline. It also creates a very serious national security problem. A lot of the folks that are holding those dollars are not exactly trusted friends of ours, and do not necessarily have our interests at heart.
This means we MUST address the problem now. We do not have the luxury of putting it off. We also do not have the luxury of picking and choosing our desired domestic energy sources. They must all be put on the table. NOW!
That means we must invest in wind, solar, fuel cell, coal, oil shale, oil sands, geothermal, ANWR oil and gas, outer continental shelf oil and gas, and whatever else someone can dream up that will work. Picking and choosing among those is just silly. We should be doing ALL of it. Let the free markets pick the winners.
There are those that say that production from ANWR or the OCS would be so far off that there is no use doing it. They are wrong. Actually, we would already have 2 million barrels a day on stream from ANWR if Bill Clinton had not vetoed the bill authorizing it some years ago. He said then that it would take too long to do any good. How right was he? That would have driven down oil prices. It will take only two or three years to start getting that oil onstream, more for the OCS.
What are our politicians doing? Wringing their hands and pointing fingers. Both Presidential candidates act like they don't really want to discuss the problem. Others trot out the same old MEOW stuff from the Carter years. When a group of Republican Congressmen tried to force the House to debate energy, the Speaker adjourned the House and had the lights and microphones turned off. The Democratic leadership is afraid to address the issue. That group of Republicans stayed for a while to make a point, but didn't persevere. No guts, no glory.
How bad can it get? Stay tuned. It will get a lot worse. Maybe OPEC will let the price go down some to make it less painful.
That is why I'm still mad, and getting madder.
Back in the late 1970s, during the last oil "crisis" and Jimmy Carter was more or less in charge, his policies were much like our current Democrats' policies. Nothing but talk and CAFE standards and "windfall" profits taxes and price controls on domestic production. Remember MEOW? That stands for Carter's moral equivalent of war. That war was fought much like our current Democrats would fight any war: surrender.
During those days we had a Texan named Eddie Chiles who ran a bunch of radio and TV ads about the energy policies of the government. They all started out with "I'm mad." They were very good and told the truth about the effects of the misguided and harmful government policies.
Soon, bumper stickers started showing up all over Texas and Eastern New Mexico: "I'm Mad Too, Eddie." They were ubiquitous in the oil patch.
(Other favorites during those days were: "Let the Bastards Freeze to Death in the Dark" and "Please Don't Tell My Mom I work in the Oil Patch; She Still Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse." That first one may be predictive: I understand there may be real problems in the northeast with fuel oil this winter, and the authorities are concerned many might go without heat. That would be bad, indeed.)
Now, here we are, thirty years later, and nothing has been done to solve the problem of reliance on foreign oil.
Back then we did not have the technology to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf as we do now. We did not have the technology to drill in sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like we do now. As a result, back then there were no real alternatives to foreign oil but coal, nuclear, natural gas, and the far out hope that someday some new technologies would come along. What did we actually do? We built some coal and natural gas plants, but abandoned the cleanest and most efficient source of energy: nuclear.
Now the crisis is back on the front pages, after we have spent thirty years sending our dollars to foreigners for their oil. Trillions of dollars. Now we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreigners every year.
The cost of all of this is not just paying more for gasoline. It also creates a very serious national security problem. A lot of the folks that are holding those dollars are not exactly trusted friends of ours, and do not necessarily have our interests at heart.
This means we MUST address the problem now. We do not have the luxury of putting it off. We also do not have the luxury of picking and choosing our desired domestic energy sources. They must all be put on the table. NOW!
That means we must invest in wind, solar, fuel cell, coal, oil shale, oil sands, geothermal, ANWR oil and gas, outer continental shelf oil and gas, and whatever else someone can dream up that will work. Picking and choosing among those is just silly. We should be doing ALL of it. Let the free markets pick the winners.
There are those that say that production from ANWR or the OCS would be so far off that there is no use doing it. They are wrong. Actually, we would already have 2 million barrels a day on stream from ANWR if Bill Clinton had not vetoed the bill authorizing it some years ago. He said then that it would take too long to do any good. How right was he? That would have driven down oil prices. It will take only two or three years to start getting that oil onstream, more for the OCS.
What are our politicians doing? Wringing their hands and pointing fingers. Both Presidential candidates act like they don't really want to discuss the problem. Others trot out the same old MEOW stuff from the Carter years. When a group of Republican Congressmen tried to force the House to debate energy, the Speaker adjourned the House and had the lights and microphones turned off. The Democratic leadership is afraid to address the issue. That group of Republicans stayed for a while to make a point, but didn't persevere. No guts, no glory.
How bad can it get? Stay tuned. It will get a lot worse. Maybe OPEC will let the price go down some to make it less painful.
That is why I'm still mad, and getting madder.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Musings
Its been six weeks or so since my last entry. I have been busy working and just have not had a desire to write about anything, although there are world's of thing to write about.
The work is one reason, of course. There are so many things that I have to be very careful about. Straight talk about some matters is verboten. The PC police are out there, and I cannot offend anyone except for white male Republicans, rednecks, and the State of Israel. Everyone and everything else seems to be protected and off limits for straight talk. The result is that I have to write on a very straight line. That takes a lot of the fun out of it.
One of the things that I can and have written on is the energy situation. There will be more, but not in this entry. Suffice it to say that the stupidity of our leaders in the Congress never fails to amaze me.
Back when I started this blog, I made up a folder on my computer called "Corruption in Congress" and started saving information about that subject, with the intention of writing a short piece on it. After several months, I just quit. There was so much information about corrupt members that it overwhelmed me. I don't have time to write a book on the subject, but to cover the entire story would take multiple volumes.
The problem, of course, is money. It takes millions of dollars to run for Congress, more millions for the Senate, and hundreds of millions to run for President. While some may come from Joe Sixpack, the real big bucks come from big money folks who have a real interest in policies of the government. Now some of this interest is benign. But much is not.
The more powerful a Congressman or Senator, the more money he gets. Congressmen serving on the Ways and Means Committee get huge donations from those with big interests in tax policy. Does this "buy" influence? You decide. But consider why our tax code is so complex. And why a simplified "flat tax" cannot get any interest up there. If everyone were treated the same, there would be no special interest money for the Congress. That money goes to buy special treatment, and special treatment for many multiples of interests make the tax code very complex.
Make the same analysis for yourselves with each committee and each Congressman or Senator. Also consider the so-called "earmarks" which are basically using your money to buy votes in most instances.
Its a wonder that Congress' approval rating is as high as it is at 14%.
The work is one reason, of course. There are so many things that I have to be very careful about. Straight talk about some matters is verboten. The PC police are out there, and I cannot offend anyone except for white male Republicans, rednecks, and the State of Israel. Everyone and everything else seems to be protected and off limits for straight talk. The result is that I have to write on a very straight line. That takes a lot of the fun out of it.
One of the things that I can and have written on is the energy situation. There will be more, but not in this entry. Suffice it to say that the stupidity of our leaders in the Congress never fails to amaze me.
Back when I started this blog, I made up a folder on my computer called "Corruption in Congress" and started saving information about that subject, with the intention of writing a short piece on it. After several months, I just quit. There was so much information about corrupt members that it overwhelmed me. I don't have time to write a book on the subject, but to cover the entire story would take multiple volumes.
The problem, of course, is money. It takes millions of dollars to run for Congress, more millions for the Senate, and hundreds of millions to run for President. While some may come from Joe Sixpack, the real big bucks come from big money folks who have a real interest in policies of the government. Now some of this interest is benign. But much is not.
The more powerful a Congressman or Senator, the more money he gets. Congressmen serving on the Ways and Means Committee get huge donations from those with big interests in tax policy. Does this "buy" influence? You decide. But consider why our tax code is so complex. And why a simplified "flat tax" cannot get any interest up there. If everyone were treated the same, there would be no special interest money for the Congress. That money goes to buy special treatment, and special treatment for many multiples of interests make the tax code very complex.
Make the same analysis for yourselves with each committee and each Congressman or Senator. Also consider the so-called "earmarks" which are basically using your money to buy votes in most instances.
Its a wonder that Congress' approval rating is as high as it is at 14%.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Dithering through an energy crisis
Barack Obama and John McCain have discussed energy policy the last day or so, and both are about to announce what their policy is, although McCain has already called to end the moratorium on offshore drilling, if the affected states agree. Obama seems to believe that we can tax ourselves to an energy solution. McCain's policy is weak, and Obama's policy is absurd. Neither will be much or any help with our energy problems. Nor has any other "energy policy" that has been pursued by our government been anything more than a hindrance for many decades. This includes the corn into ethanol boondoggle.
Clearly, in the long run, we must find alternatives to fossil fuels. Equally clearly, we must also look for shorter term help for our economy and to reduce the huge amounts of our treasure we are sending overseas to OPEC and others. The huge balance of payments deficit that we have been running for many years endangers us all.
For the short term, there are plenty of domestic reserves that could be developed or are in the process of being developed. With intelligent leadership we could, in a few years, substantially increase domestic production. This would help keep the "oil tax" on our economy far lower than it otherwise would be. We need to start now, not wring our hands about it for another decade or two.
Some of the potential reserves:
The Bakken is a shale formation in the Williston Basin that is similar to the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin. The techniques developed in the Barnett play are being adapted to produce the oil in the Bakken, as well as other similar shales all over the country. This will undoubtedly increase domestic production over time, but it is not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. It will certainly help.
Some other deposits are the western oil shales...again, a similar deposit to the Barnett and the Bakken, but these are mainly on the surface. These deposits do contain upwards of a trillion barrels of oil, and the technology exists to extract it. The difficulty with this is the damage that will be done environmentally. There could be really serious damage done to the western states to strip mine that shale, unless there are restrictions on the way it is done. Studies on this are being held up in the Senate.
Reserves in ANWR, that are now off limits, are approximately 15-20 billion barrels. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation allowing limited drilling up there, we would have over 1 million barrels per day of that producing now, which would significantly reduce the costs of gasoline at this time. This is substantial production that could now be online, and with appropriate environmental protections.
Reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida and the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts are estimated at 100 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. These reserves are now off limits as well. These regions can be drilled with current technology with NO environmental risks.
One reserve that is in Canada is rarely mentioned. That is the huge oil sands deposit up there. There are about 1+ trillion barrels of oil in those sands, and they are now being developed. The first new refinery in the US in over 30 years has been approved in North Dakota to refine oil from that deposit. Unfortunately, our Congress, in its infinite stupidity, has classified that as unconventional oil, thereby making it largely unavailable for use in the US.
The United States also has the largest coal reserves in the world. There has existed since before World War II a technology to make gasoline from coal. The Germans used that process to fuel their war machine during the war, since they had no oil reserves. We could be doing that as well. The largest single reserve of "clean" coal in the United States was put "off limits" by Bill Clinton, who put it into a national monument.
The bottom line: mostly unreasonable environmental concerns and the Democratic Party and it's policies have put our potential for true energy security completely out of reach. The Republicans have done little to counter this. We have the reserves and the technology to safely produce a lot of oil or equivalent, but our political leadership has failed to allow this to happen, and in fact prevents it. When you add up the huge costs we are paying for energy, together with the huge costs of the resulting balance of payments deficit, you can see that our leaders in the government have totally failed. And they apparently plan to continue to do so.
Clearly, in the long run, we must find alternatives to fossil fuels. Equally clearly, we must also look for shorter term help for our economy and to reduce the huge amounts of our treasure we are sending overseas to OPEC and others. The huge balance of payments deficit that we have been running for many years endangers us all.
For the short term, there are plenty of domestic reserves that could be developed or are in the process of being developed. With intelligent leadership we could, in a few years, substantially increase domestic production. This would help keep the "oil tax" on our economy far lower than it otherwise would be. We need to start now, not wring our hands about it for another decade or two.
Some of the potential reserves:
The Bakken is a shale formation in the Williston Basin that is similar to the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin. The techniques developed in the Barnett play are being adapted to produce the oil in the Bakken, as well as other similar shales all over the country. This will undoubtedly increase domestic production over time, but it is not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. It will certainly help.
Some other deposits are the western oil shales...again, a similar deposit to the Barnett and the Bakken, but these are mainly on the surface. These deposits do contain upwards of a trillion barrels of oil, and the technology exists to extract it. The difficulty with this is the damage that will be done environmentally. There could be really serious damage done to the western states to strip mine that shale, unless there are restrictions on the way it is done. Studies on this are being held up in the Senate.
Reserves in ANWR, that are now off limits, are approximately 15-20 billion barrels. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation allowing limited drilling up there, we would have over 1 million barrels per day of that producing now, which would significantly reduce the costs of gasoline at this time. This is substantial production that could now be online, and with appropriate environmental protections.
Reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida and the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts are estimated at 100 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. These reserves are now off limits as well. These regions can be drilled with current technology with NO environmental risks.
One reserve that is in Canada is rarely mentioned. That is the huge oil sands deposit up there. There are about 1+ trillion barrels of oil in those sands, and they are now being developed. The first new refinery in the US in over 30 years has been approved in North Dakota to refine oil from that deposit. Unfortunately, our Congress, in its infinite stupidity, has classified that as unconventional oil, thereby making it largely unavailable for use in the US.
The United States also has the largest coal reserves in the world. There has existed since before World War II a technology to make gasoline from coal. The Germans used that process to fuel their war machine during the war, since they had no oil reserves. We could be doing that as well. The largest single reserve of "clean" coal in the United States was put "off limits" by Bill Clinton, who put it into a national monument.
The bottom line: mostly unreasonable environmental concerns and the Democratic Party and it's policies have put our potential for true energy security completely out of reach. The Republicans have done little to counter this. We have the reserves and the technology to safely produce a lot of oil or equivalent, but our political leadership has failed to allow this to happen, and in fact prevents it. When you add up the huge costs we are paying for energy, together with the huge costs of the resulting balance of payments deficit, you can see that our leaders in the government have totally failed. And they apparently plan to continue to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)